On Jimmy Carter's False Apartheid Analogy

Jimmy Carter has appeared on “Meet the Press,” Larry King, Charlie Rose, and elsewhere making his latest book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, a best-seller. Apparently, Carter’s publisher postponed the publication date until mid-November so as not to distract Democrats with a campaign controversy about their ex-President’s anti-Israel prejudices. By alleging that Israel practices Apartheid, Jimmy Carter’s title reflects a sloppy and nasty form of historical analogizing seeking to delegitimze Israel and Zionism, perpetuated by pro-Palestinian groups on campuses and elsewhere.

Carter has defended his title, by using “Apartheid” as a synonym for “apartness” and saying the division is economic not racial. But he has repeated the South African analogy to drive home his rhetorical point. Using the “Apartheid” label without seeking to impute racism, would be akin to calling Carter a redneck and claiming it only has to do with his tanning habits. If Carter is so innocent as to be unaware of the resonance that term has, he is not the expert on the Middle East or world affairs he purports to be.

This unconscionable, inaccurate label insults anyone who supports the modern Jewish state of Israel as well as everyone who suffered under South Africa’s evil Apartheid system. Apartheid was a racist legal system the Afrikaner Nationalists dominating South Africa’s government imposed after World War II. The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites. Apartheid quickly developed into a brutal system that tried to dehumanize South Africa’s majority nonwhite population.

Beyond the historical definition, international law emphasizes that Apartheid involves intentional, mandated racism. In 1973 the United Nations General Assembly defined Apartheid as “the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically oppressing them.” The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.

Injecting “racism” into the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is absurd. It is a sloppy attempt to slander Israel with the accusation du jour, a statement as trendy and ahistorical as equating Zionism with European colonialism, another folly given Jews’ historic ties to the land of Israel. Since the Nazi attempt to annihilate Jews as a “race,” the Jewish world has recoiled against defining Jews as a “race.” Zionism talks about Judaism, the Jewish people, the Jewish state. The Arab-Israeli conflict is a nationalist clash with religious overtones. The rainbow of colors among Israelis and Palestinians, with black Ethiopian Jews, and white Christian Palestinians, proves that both national communities are diverse.

Sadly, Israeli and Palestinians do not enjoy the kind of harmony the Israeli Declaration of Independence envisioned. Carter and his comrades use “Apartheid” as shorthand to condemn some of the security measures improvised recently, especially since Carter’s late friend Yasir Arafat unleashed the latest wave of terrorism in September 2000. Israel built a security fence to protect its citizens and separate Palestinian enclaves from Israeli cities. Ironically, that barrier marks Israel’s most dramatic recognition of Palestinian aspirations to independence since Israel signed the Oslo Accords in 1993.

By accusing Israel of practicing Apartheid, Jimmy Carter has endorsed the latest Arab attempt to demonize Israel. In a world organized by nation states, singling out Jewish nationalism, meaning Zionism, as racist was so ridiculous even the United Nations ultimately rescinded its 1974 resolution. Applying the Apartheid label tries to ostracize Israel by misrepresenting some of the difficult decisions Israel has felt forced to make in fighting Palestinian terror. Israel’s opponents are trying to transfer onto Israel the civilized world’s justifiable contempt for South African oppression. This charge is particularly ironic coming from so many Arab states, which perpetuate discriminatory citizenship policies against Christians, women, and even other Arabs from different regions.

No country is perfect or above criticism. But the one-sided zeal of critics like Carter, singling out Israel in inflammatory ways, raises doubts about the critics more than the criticized. Many seem all too eager for Israel to fail, happily pouncing on any Israeli mistake, while blindly ignoring crimes others perpetuate systematically, especially Israel’s Arab neighbors.

Jimmy Carter’s decision to use such a loaded, misleading, sloppy term is especially suspicious given his denunciation of those who “choose certain emotional issues for demagoguery” in foreign policy and his willingness to befriend dictators around the world. Not only has Carter palled around with Yasir Arafat, Kim Jong Il, Fidel Castro, and the Chinese oligarchs, he has always bristled at those who dared label his buddies “terrorists” or “dictators.”

Historians of all political stripes should warn against the dangers of promiscuous and ahistorical analogizing, which tends to distort the past and inflame the present. In fact, in his 2002 Nobel Peace Prize Lecture, Jimmy Carter condemned the human tendency “to dehumanize our opponents,” for “Once we characterize our adversaries as beyond the scope of God's mercy and grace, their lives lose all value.” In branding Israel with such an intemperate, counterproductive, dehumanizing label, the man who parades around as the world’s most charitable mediator has given a green light to Palestinian terrorism and extremism. He and the others perpetuating this ahistorical, immoral lie owe blacks and Jews, Africans and Israelis, historians and other thinking souls, an apology.

More Comments:

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Confronted by the British imperialist/Zionist alliance intent on enabling the Zionists to colonize Palestine the Palestinians sought help and allies where ever they could find them and whoever they happen to be particularly if they happen to be anti Zionist; as any threatened community would !

Zionism and British imperialism, not Nazi Germany, were the prime deadly enemies of the Palestinian people; to pretend otherwise is hypocrisy!

The USSR went into an open declared alliance with Hitler's Germany when it was threatened with a West/Nazi alliance.

Recently, and until its demise, Israel has had a long and very warm relationship with Apartheid South Africa that included nuclear cooperation!

The Allies thought long and hard about an alliance with Hitler to confront the USSR and communism; neither morality nor aversion to Nazism deterred them, other factors did.

Nothing new or surprising here: the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Even Zionists and Jews, some of whom were guards and assistants to the Nazi in extermination of Jews camps, dealt with the Nazis , directly and indirectly, when it suited their purposes (http://www.google.jo/search?hl=en&amp;q=Zionist%2FNazi+cooperation&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

The Palestinian people was then, as much as it is now, confronted by the mortal threat of a Zionist(Israel)/Imperialist(US) alliance were NOT, still are not, in a position to pick and choose their friends and allies on moral grounds .

This "holier than thou" address particularly that it is coming from the declared friends and allies of the aggressive, expansionist and racist regime and entity, Israel, such as Friedman and Professor (?) Eckstein etc, is hypocrisy incarnate and a put up show of assumed morality that will fool only the ignorant and naively gullible.

I propose more respect be shown by this herd to the inteligence and knowledge of the general reader!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

"When caught with such blatant LIES or sub civil statements, in the past, Professor Eckstein used to apologize...but such lies from a Professor are beyond apology for a self respecting school, to say nothing about a self respecting UNIVERSITY."

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr. Green
According to the King/Crane commission report the Jews constituted some 10% of the indigenous Palestinian people versus 80% Arabs, both Moslems and Christians.

The national identity and cultural, including religious, character of a land, a country, is based, is derived from the cultural/national identity of the majority of its inhabitants which , you concede, has been predominantly Arab since the 7th century AD up to the its willful distortion by the influx of alien, overwhelmingly Western, Jewish immigrants to establish a Zionist/Jewish colony in the early 20 th century.

The rest is administrative arrangements which does not change the cardinal facts that :
-Palestine, for some 13 centuries at least, was predominantly Arab and
-that this natural demographic composition of its indigenous population was forcedly and aggressively altered, against the express will of its indigenous population, by British imperialist/Zionist collusion.
The objective being to pave the way for its colonization by these same aliens and their fellow Zionists world wide.

I welcome the analogy you draw between the Arab/Moslem conquest of Palestine in the 7th century and the Zionist conquest in the 20% century.
Despite its inaccuracy it is revealing in that it confirms my often repeated contention that Zionism is a RETROGRESSIVE dogma and movement in that it had applied, in the 20th century, the era of people's right to Self Determination, the practices of the 7th century.
Thus negating 13 (thirteen) centuries of human progress which witnessed the progress of human kind from the era of marauding tribes to the era of settled communities.
As such Israel is truly a throw back to the era of marauding tribes ,in search of better pastures, that unhesitatingly dislocated the weaker tribe residing in the land it coveted and supplanted it by naked force.

This mode of "nation/state" building of Israel together with the fact that its human element was based on a single confessional community with a very heavy reliance on an assumed single ethnicity and wide spread pretensions of a common racial provenance, make Zionism an arch retrogressive, aggressive and racist dogma that moulded its offspring, Israel, into the plundering, marauding, aggressive expansionist and racist nation/state that it, undeniably, IS.
A Zionist Israel, that is an exclusively or predominantly Jewish nation/state, is a historical anachronism that will perish in due course because of its retrogressive and hugely aggressive (the dislocation, dispossession and disfranchisement of the indigenous Arab Palestinian people) mode of birth and its intrinsic aggressive and racist character.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

All of the herd's responses above; Kovachev's,Eckstein's, Friedman's and Simon's show that their respondants, by avoiding to address the points made, CONCEDE that Israel is a RETROGRESSIVE, AGGRESSIVE and RACIST entity.
Good enough coming from its closest friends and allies.
"Making the desert bloom"!
Is that NOT the old ,universally discarded, colonialist rationale??

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Israel's mode of birth and racist foundation , its subsequent policies and practices, its right wing, chauvinistic cum racist cum expansionist, drift and its general total disregard of the most fundamental rules and requirements of civilized behaviour makes it not only a historical anachronism but equally highly suspected and susceptible to all kinds of insane dreams, designs and policies including coveting Europe's water resources.
The monster and historical anamoly that is Zionist Israel is showing the effects of its mode of birth and its racist outlook
!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Poor Deluded Prof ??? Eckstein
(With every post you pen I find my question marks to your professorship more relevant than before)
Any way; if the U of M is saddled with you then tough luck to it and to your poor students.

1-By attempting, and succeeding for now, to colonize Palestine the Zionist movement necessarily became the ipso facto enemy of the Arab and Moslem worlds; that, Prof, is the A, B and C of the issue!
So it is not a question of who declared, or pronounced, "first" the other to be the enemy; it is a question of who invaded, conquered and colonized that necessarily made him the enemy; that would be D, E and F.!
(You forget "first"; though in your inane mode of thinking it should be there for you to be consistent with your earlier inanities.)

By invading, conquering and colonizing South Africa the invaders and colonizers became the enemy of its indigenous population; by invading Algeria, conquering it and colonizing it France per force of the very act it committed against the Algerian people became the enemy of the Algerian people etc, etc; in neither case was it who declared the other as the "enemy".
That should make it plain even for you to understand: the invader, conqueror and colonizer automatically becomes/is per force, necessarily-inevitably-unavoidably is the enemy!
(In his total blindness Prof ??? Eckstein failed to note that I wrote about the "Zionist/neocon alliance " and NOT about Zionism per se )

2- I contend that all societies and all communities close ranks when confronted by a serious security threat as is the neocon/Zionist alliance threat to the Arab/Moslem worlds.
To qualify such a closing of ranks as "primitive" denotes a perverted mind and bottomless ignorance from a Prof of history, of all things.

3-The Afrikaner colonists of South Africa of the Apartheid system and era had a democracy of their own with all the wherewithal; that did not make them Less of colonists nor make , then, South Africa a modern sophisticated society and state nor did that efface its racist character!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Poor Deluded Prof ??? Eckstein
(With every post you pen I find my question marks to your professorship more relevant than before)
Any way; if the U of M is saddled with you then tough luck to it and to your poor students.

1-By attempting, and succeeding for now, to colonize Palestine the Zionist movement necessarily became the ipso facto enemy of the Arab and Moslem worlds; that, Prof, is the A, B and C of the issue!
So it is not a question of who declared, or pronounced, "first" the other to be the enemy; it is a question of who invaded, conquered and colonized that necessarily made him the enemy; that would be D, E and F.!
(You forget "first"; though in your inane mode of thinking it should be there for you to be consistent with your earlier inanities.)

By invading, conquering and colonizing South Africa the invaders and colonizers became the enemy of its indigenous population; by invading Algeria, conquering it and colonizing it France per force of the very act it committed against the Algerian people became the enemy of the Algerian people etc, etc; in neither case was it who declared the other as the "enemy".
That should make it plain even for you to understand: the invader, conqueror and colonizer automatically becomes/is per force, necessarily-inevitably-unavoidably is the enemy!
(In his total blindness Prof ??? Eckstein failed to note that I wrote about the "Zionist/neocon alliance " and NOT about Zionism per se )

2- I contend that all societies and all communities close ranks when confronted by a serious security threat as is the neocon/Zionist alliance threat to the Arab/Moslem worlds.
To qualify such a closing of ranks as "primitive" denotes a perverted mind and bottomless ignorance from a Prof of history, of all things.

3-The Afrikaner colonists of South Africa of the Apartheid system and era had a democracy of their own with all the wherewithal; that did not make them Less of colonists nor make , then, South Africa a modern sophisticated society and state nor did that efface its racist character!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Re: Re Carter's smear & Barrie & Arnold/To Mr Green (#103636)
by Elliott Aron Green on December 25, 2006 at 9:00 AM
Omar, do you think Saudi Arabia, for instance, should be exempt from criticism for its very apartheid-like [dhimma enforcing] social system?"
No; I do NOT believe that SA should be exempt!
Unlike you and yours I do NOT believe in a double standard, nor in exemption nor in the extra rights and prerogatives of the "chosen people"nor in :
"EXCEPT in the case of Israel" of a halucinating Prof???
However; a spade is a spade, a crime is a crime and an alien colonist is an alien colonist and a "Racist Israel is a fact for all to see !

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

By all means; he seems to be eminently qualified!
However let us wait and see what next(s) he has to say!
Merry Xmass Mr Lambert.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Well Mr Simon you had many things to say about many people!
So what ...does that make what you say memorable or inteligent or perceptive?
Not Necessarily ; actually NOT at all.
What you have to say shows one thing to me : a keen mind at the service of a nefarious, racist cause!
Pity

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

After a moderate, time wise, restraint Mr Green has finally joined the herd to reiterate the absurd, intelligence insulting, contention that:
"1--There never was a Palestinian people in all history. The Arabs did not believe in such a people. The PLO charter asserts the Arab nature of the "Palestinian Arab people" "(#103982) which absurdity;
a-Raises the question "what to call" the indigenous, native population of Palestine for many centuries past?
Is he for calling them the Xians?
b-Presumes that the Arab Palestinians, or Xians if he prefers, who have populated and inhabited Palestine, as a marked majority for the many recent centuries past,ARE nothing but: passers by?, tourists?, locators?, renters? Populating the land temporarily (To keep it warm , so to speak) until the Jews have the wherewithal to return at which time they will return the key and pay, the long absentee owner, any overdue rent!
c-That being Arab contradicts, annuls and negates being a Palestinian Arab or Arab Palestinian ; a woefully inane play on words and a cheap attempt to capitalize on unknowing i.e. the general reader .
Unless, of course, being a Texan or Virginian or Bostonian contradicts, negates and annuls being an American national of the USA.
The hitherto erudite voice , of obvious learning and no less obvious dogmatic Zionist racism, could restrain himself no longer and felt compelled to join the herd/chorus of the absurd to support their most recent PR disinformation gimmick that:"There are No Palestinians"
What are THEY, what are WE then, the indigenous Palestinian Arabs dwelers,inhabitants, natives, as a majoruty in Palestine untill the 1948s, and their descendants that were dislocated, dispossessed and disfranchised by the colonialist, racist Zionist invasion and conquest of Palestine.
The Afrikaner colonist never went so far, or so stupid and insulting to all, as to claim that "there are No Africans” in Apartheid South Africa; the shameless Israeli Zionist and Zionists overall did make that leap into the absurd ad stupidity by claiming:" there are NO Palestinians"!
Mr Green could NOT restrain himself much longer and HAD to join the herd bs and all.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
Whatever you are driving at with your, certainly ill willed, pseudo theorizing whether to convince yourself of, or console yourself with, will change NONE of the following fundamental facts and Arab/Moslem unanimity about them:
1- That Palestine is an Arab country in the nationalist/cultural sense ( no blood invoved here as with yours).
2-That it has been invaded and conquered by aliens who managed to colonize it, for now .
3-That its indigenous native Palestinian Arab population , both Moslems and Christians, are intent on liberating it from the Zionist racist colonialism that supplanted its indigenous legal population with ALIEN colons.
4- That the Arab nation and the Moslem world partake in their beliefs and supports them.
5- That being an Arab Palestinian does not conflict with being a Moslem Arab Palestinian or a Christian Arab Palestinian.
6-That a Zionist Israel borne out of the aggressive, racist dogma, Zionism, is an ALIEN ,retrogressive intruder into the region practicing Apartheid that can only survive with uninterrupted imperialist support.

You can theorize all that you want but the determinig factor is what the whole region believes in and of this alien ,racist intruder: Zionist Israel.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr. Green
I note that you tend to diminish the issue into a quibble about a detail here and a detail there proffering your own details, none of which is substantiated and most of which reply on a play on the exact meaning of words as in your statement:

"At the time of the Crusades, the Arab-Muslims were a minority and Jews were a substantial part of the population [not a majority, to be sure]. "

Where, we note, exactness of expression is applied when it affects adversely Arab positions ( the Arab-Muslims were a "minority") and safety is sought in ambiguity of expression when it affects Zionist/Jewish claims (and Jews were a "substantial part of the population" [not a majority, to be sure]. ).

That is cheap and totally expected.

The important thing is that you fail utterly to respond to the major points I made, namely (Numerals added):

"
1-
I welcome the analogy you draw between the Arab/Moslem conquest of Palestine in the 7th century and the Zionist conquest in the 20% century.
Despite its inaccuracy it is revealing in that it confirms my often repeated contention that Zionism is a RETROGRESSIVE dogma and movement in that it had applied, in the 20th century, the era of people's right to Self Determination, the practices of the 7th century.
Thus negating 13 (thirteen) centuries of human progress which witnessed the progress of human kind from the era of marauding tribes to the era of settled communities.

2-
As such Israel is truly a throw back to the era of marauding tribes ,in search of better pastures, that unhesitatingly dislocated the weaker tribe residing in the land it coveted and supplanted it by naked force.

3-
This mode of "nation/state" building of Israel together with the fact that its human element was based on a single confessional community with a very heavy reliance on an assumed single ethnicity and wide spread pretensions of a common racial provenance, make Zionism an arch retrogressive, aggressive and racist dogma that moulded its offspring, Israel, into the plundering, marauding, aggressive expansionist and racist nation/state that it, undeniably, IS.

4-
A Zionist Israel, that is an exclusively or predominantly Jewish nation/state, is a historical anachronism that will perish in due course because of its retrogressive and hugely aggressive (the dislocation, dispossession and disfranchisement of the indigenous Arab Palestinian people) mode of birth and its intrinsic aggressive and racist character."

And, I should add, its utter REJECTION by its environment

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Few, if any,nations, countries, religions and cultures are guiltless in this sad world of ours; however some crimes are given more exposure than others and the selection of which to expose most rests with the mercenaries of the media (Murdoch &Co) and of the pressure groups (AIPAC) etc !
Upholding and Defending Palestinian inalienable rights in their homeland Palestine , including their RIGHT of RETURN; exposing , condemning and resisting the aggressive, expansionist and racist practices and policies of Israel in colonized (1948) and occupied(1967) Palestine should in no way be construed as condoning crimes anywhere else .

Recalling the crimes of others to justify one's crime is to avow and confess one's criminality .
One crime no matter how heinous, as is the Holocaust, or several does NOT justify another!
(Kindly spare me the false "habibna" for it is NOT reciprocated)

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Nothing frightens Yehudi as much as the word "right" whatever it happens to be; rights is a horrible word to him.
Transient,unenduring power gone to an empty head!
Very short sighted!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

The Right of RETURN is too important a subject to be left to the on/off halucinations of the likes of Prof ???Eckstein and the hare brained and impolite Professor himself ,of course,who jumps in and out at the slightest dawning of an idea and works, mentally and otherwise, in fits and starts.(The time interval berween some, actually most, of his successive posts is a few minutes).

Some good points on the subject , for the edification of the knowledge seeker, are posted below:

• The Right to Return has a solid legal basis:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 13 affirms: "Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and return to his country."
The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [Article 5 (d)(ii)], states: "State parties undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination on all its forms and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, color, or national or ethnic origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of ... the right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's country."
The International Convention on Civil and Political Rights [Article 12(4)], states: "No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country."

Moreover, the Principle of Self Determination guarantees, inter alia, the right of ownership and domicile in one's own country. The UN adopted this principle in 1947. In 1969 and thereafter, it was explicitly applied to the Palestinian People, including "the legality of the Peoples' struggle for Self-Determination and Liberation", (GAOR 2535 (xxiv), 2628 (xxv), 2672 (xxv), 2792 (xxvi)). International law demands that neither occupation nor sovereignty diminish the rights of ownership. When the Ottomans surrendered in 1920, Palestinian ownership of the land was maintained. The land and property of the refugees remains their own and they are entitled to return to it.

• In 1948, the international community felt a deep sense of responsibility for the mass dispossession, ethnic cleansing and the Zionist transfer policy that began then. United Nations Mediator Count Folke Bernadotte, who was later assassinated by a Zionist terrorist hit squad, stated: "It would be an offence against the principles of elemental justice if these innocent victims of the conflict were denied the right to return to their homes, while Jewish immigrants flow into Palestine" (UN Doc Al 648, 1948). This remains true today as any Jew, regardless of national origin, can gain automatic citizenship while Palestinian Arabs are denied their right to return to their own homeland.

• Consistent with International Law, The United Nations General Assembly adopted Resolution 194 on December 11, 1948. Paragraph 11 states: "the [Palestinian] refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or in equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible."

• UN General Assembly Resolution 194 has been has been affirmed by the UN over 130 times since its introduction in 1948 with universal consensus except for Israel and the U.S. This resolution was further clarified by UN General Assembly Resolution 3236 which reaffirms in Subsection 2: "the inalienable right of Palestinians to return to their homes and property from which they have been displaced and uprooted, and calls for their return."

• Israel's admission to the UN was conditional on its acceptance of UN resolutions including 194. Denying the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes and lands is a war crime and an act of aggression which deserves action by the international community. The international community can apply sanctions on Israel until it complies with international law.

• The right of refugees to return is not only sacred and legal but also possible. Demographic studies show that 80% of Israelis live in 15 percent of the land and that the remaining 20% live on 85% of the land that belongs to the refugees. Further, of the 20%, 18% live in Palestinian cities while the remaining 2% live in kibbutzim and moshavs. By contrast, more than 6,000 refugees live per square kilometer in the Gaza Strip, while over the barbed wire their lands are practically empty. Ninety seven percent of the entire refugee population currently lives within 100 km of their homes. Fifty percent live within 40 km. While many live within sight of their homes.

• The inalienable rights of refugees are not negotiable. International law considers agreements between an occupier and the occupied to be null and void if they deprive civilians of recognized human rights including the rights to repatriation and restitution.

• The US is bound by its laws not to fund regimes that violate human rights and basic freedoms. There is no more elemental right than one's right to his/her home and to live in his/her land. The US could use the leverage of the massive financial support it gives to the State of Israel to press for this right.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

"Omar, You have announced your purpose is the destruction of Israel. Everything you write is for that purpose."((#103775)
by art eckstein on December 27, 2006 at 12:58 AM).

Another blatant LIE from a Prof???? who can not tell the difference in the meaning of words.

I have always maintained that the way out, which I believe in and advocate, is:"The DeZionization" of Israel and the "Palestinization of Palestine."

DeZionization (as for deNazification) being ridding "Israel" of its Zionist character and dogmatic (ideological) outlook which strives for the goal of an exclusively, or predominantly, Jewish nation/state in Palestine through, primarily, the DENIAL of Palestinian Arab refugees their inalienable RIGHT of RETURN to their homeland.

Dezionization, I have also maintained, would lead to the Palestinization of Palestine for all to live in and prosper.

However had this truly unworthy Prof ??? been more concerned with ideas aired than in the alleged sexual inclinations of Prophet Mohamed, (for which he abjectly apologized ;an apology that fails to hide his real character and mettle) or calling people "ass" etc he would have noticed that I have equally maintained that "Dezionization" of Israel and the Palestinization of Palestine would lead to its "dealientation ", and consequent integration in its environment ; being a genuine and the sine qua non step towards real, durable peace for ALL..

If that is, according to Prof??? Eckstein, "destruction" then the poor man has definitely a comprehension problem not only of ideas but of words ( let us forget about ethics , only for now )!

Prof ??? Eckstein is truly unworthy of, inter alia, his title, poor U of M, but mainly he is unworthy of interest except that he seems to me to be the typical Zionist, a fervent foot soldier (no more) in the herd, that shamelessly defends the denial of other human beings their inalienable rights while talking and posing, in other matters, as defenders and advocates of democracy, human rights, civil behaviour, progress etc etc.
(That they fail to see their anomaly, their intrinsic contradictions and inborn racism is another matter; see my post "The Perils of "Except in the case of Israel"")

Otherwise he, Prof??? Eckstein, is, title not withstanding, truly unworthy of any thing!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

More bs from the supposedly saner, or rather less deleriously racist, of the herd.
For a lawyer to contend that law is applicable only if the belligerents approve of it says a lot about how blind can people be, or become, when that law affects them or affect their interests or uncovers their biases and racism.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Prof???Eckstein
Hiding behind Friedman Prof ????
I note you totally failed to address my post # 103777 specifically addressed to you!
Friedman came to the rescue or is per chance?

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

"Re: The Perils of " Except in the case of Israel" (#103744)
by N. Friedman on December 26, 2006 at 11:29 AM
Art,

The French law allows any person with "French blood" to return to France. That excludes most of France's Muslim and Jewish population. "
A question Mr Friedman;
re your post above: What kind of "blood" do most , or all, Jewish Frenchmen have!
So is it a question of "blood"?

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Prof????Eckstein
Back to my post#103777 specifically addressed to YOU.
Stop hiding that now you are back to your house.
Have a glass of cold water and wash your mouth first, please!OK?

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

If that is how far you can , mentally, go ...more is the pity for your unfortunate students...Prof

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr. Friedman
Recalling the crimes of others in no way mitigates or justifies a certain crime for the victim nor alleviates it nor decriminalize the act .
Murder is murder whether it led to the death of five or ten victims.
Your "logic" is not only inane but is also perverted particularly for a lawyer; it boils down to: why bother about this crime? other, bigger crimes were committed!
Had others, including your wife, voluntarily given up on their rights that is their prerogative...that ,however, does not imply that all others should!
The issue , as often repeated ,is that a people was dislocated, dispossessed , disfranchised and subjugated from and in his homeland by an alien colonialist invader and supplanted by other aliens chosen and selected according to specific racial/Racist criteria and whether to put up with this conquest or RESIST it.
I am for resisting this alien conqueror, for the liberation of Palestine,for depriving the criminal from enjoying the fruits of his crime and for undoing what to me and to my people is the crime of the century.
The Right of the Palestinian people to Return to their homeland is part of that issue.
To be called upon by a lawyer, of all people, to give up on our inalienable rights is only understandable if we recall that that lawyer BENEFITED from the crime.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

"by art eckstein on December 23, 2006 at 12:35 PM:

Except in the case of Israel, it's the truth."

Why the (seemingly sincerely stated) "except" by the long winded, but shortsighted Prof??? Eckstein?

These people seem to sincerely believe that they are entitled to be the EXCEPTION to recognized human behaviour for more reasons that one.

Starting with the inane presumed prerogatives bestowed on them as the "chosen people" and ending with the current belief by the herd that ,as such, they have ....a carte blanche to commit murder and larceny because they are the exception!

The horror of the thing is that they, the unpaid PR agents and propagandists among them, do sincerely believe that they are EXCEPTED from many things and consequently ENTITLED to things denied others.

They were present in great numbers, and more vociferous than most, in condemning it when APARTHEID was a South African crime.
Now most of them even fail to see it, to say nothing about condemning it, that it is an all too visible ISRAELI crime!

That is more than the proverbial dual standard; that is "blindness", self inflicted for some inborn for others, and the sorry complex of being born into and brought up as an "EXCEPTION"!

The mere fact that they, or those among them, who believe, welcome and bank on being in the “except" category fail to recognize that being "excepted" is step one to being WILLINGLY "singled out" which if, and when, associated with an inane belief that HE singled them out for extra over WORLDY rights, prerogatives and privileges HE equally singled them out for extra over treatment by the UNexcepted!

To believe in being the "except" is racism that forcefully invite anti Semitism; hence the world's and their tragedy!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

"by art eckstein on December 23, 2006 at 12:35 PM:

Except in the case of Israel, it's the truth."

Why the ,seemingly sincerely stated, "except" by the long winded, but shortsighted Prof??? Eckstein?

These people seem to sincerely believe that they are entitled to be the EXCEPTION to recognized human behaviour for more reasons that one.

Starting with the inane presumed prerogatives bestowed on them as the "chosen people" and ending with the current belief and practice by the herd that ,as such, they have ....a carte blanche to commit murder and larceny because they are the exception!

The horror of the thing is that they, the unpaid PR agents and propagandists among them, do sincerely believe that they are EXCEPTED from many things and consequently ENTITLED to things denied others.

They were present in great numbers, and more vociferous than most, in condemning it when APARTHEID was a South African crime.
Now most of them even fail to see it, to say nothing about condemning it, that it is an all too visible ISRAELI crime!

That is more than the proverbial dual standard; that is "blindness", self inflicted for some inborn for others, and the sorry complex of being born into and brought up as an "EXCEPTION"!

The mere fact that they, or those among them, who believe, welcome and bank on being in the “except" category/class fail to recognize that being "excepted" is step one to being WILLINGLY "singled out" which if, and when, associated with an inane belief that HE singled them out for extra over WORLDY rights, prerogatives and privileges HE equally singled them out for extra over treatment by the UNexcepted!

To believe in being the "except" is racism that forcefully invite anti Semitism; hence the world's and their tragedy!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

"Both (Spain and Greece) areas are still claimed by Muslims as having been stolen by Christians."(Friedman #103302)
Lies and Fabrications ad infinitum is the latest weapon of the herd and the , presumably, saner element in it!
Where ever did Mr Friedman find a serious Islamic or Islamist claim or serious claimants for either Spain and/or Greece??
J'accuse Friedman of fabricating LIES and irresponsibly trying to spread them.
Had this absurd fabrication come out from YA it would have been in character but from N. Friedman , that is really sad and a true reflection of their desperation.

Substantiate it N. or apologize and shut up!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
What kind of "blood" do YOU have?

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

More is the pity Prof???
Sad indeed that you are in charge of "educating people"..Sad

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
You arrive at the conclusions you are after by making the assumptions that support you including the assumption that RETURNING refugees do NOT want to, will NOT, live in peace in their homeland.
How did you come to that conclusion?
Were they requested to undertake that should they RETURN to their homeland they will live in peace? And they refused to make that undertaking, with all penalities that goes with any violation of their undertakig.

Why can you NOT be honest about it and admit that their return to their homeland will make the Zionist goal of an exclusively, or predominantly, Jewish Palestine so much harder to achieve?

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

But it is FACTS and HISTORY , before and after Carter, that truly and objectively demonize Israel.

These are:

A-The 10% Jewish population of Palestine pre WW1 become 45% post WW11 as a result of
-Collusion with British imperialism
-Despite the relentless opposition of the then Arab(Moslem and Christian) 80% majority
-Through the denial of the indigenous Palestinian people their Right to Self Determination.

B-The forced change of the demographic composition of Palestine ( from 10% to 45 %)led to:
- the UNGA Partition Plan which allocated the Jews 52% of the total area of Historical Palestine,however:
- the 1948 Palestinian Arab/"Israeli=Jewish" war ,the so called Israeli war of Independence, ended with the "Jewish state" in control of 72% of this same land area
-The 20% (72-52)extra land thus held is above and beyond what was allocated by the UNGA, which presumably constitutes the "Legal" foundation of Israel, is conqured land into which Israel expanded and imposed its authority.
-All of the 72% of the land held was subjected to a systematic ethnic cleansing campaign of outright genocidal massacre (Deir Yassin etc) and forced eviction of civilians (Ramleh and Lid etc)aiming to depopulate it from its Arab indigenous population .
-The war witnessed an extensive Arab Palestinian civilian mass movement, to distance civilians from war zones, the Palestinian refugees issue.
-These refugees were, after the cessation of hostilities,and still are DENIED their RIGHT of RETURN to their homes and to repossess their legitimate properties despite another UNGA resolution to that effect.
-The dislocated Palestinians' lands , homes, farms, workshops, offices etc were occupied and used by "Jewish", old and newcomer settlers.

C-The land ( the 72%)thus, substantially,ethnically cleansed from its indigenous Arab population was populated by newcomers allowed into Palestine by a patently RACIST Israeli "Law of Reurn".
This "law" reserves that "right" to Jews and disqualifies all others, including the dislocated indigenous Arab population, from returning to their homes while allowing each and every Jew , who so desires, to settle in Palestine thus confirming the RACIST criteria and the Racist nature of the state of Israel.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
The italicized part of the sentences quoted could, with bottomless ill will, be construed as a "claim" although I believe it is more likely to mean a "wish" for the return of Seville to Islam or the return of Islam, as the religion of the majority of Sevillians, to Seville.

I understand it to be much more of a "wish" than a "claim" in the legal or political sense .

However as a "claim "in either sense it would definitely be irresponsible, and certainly asinine, in my view and the hallucinatory outpourings of sick minds.

As a "wish" it is perfectly understandable: is it NOT the wish of ALL religions to be "the (prevalent) religion" where ever and every where? Is that NOT part of their universal mission?

You, Mr. Friedman, understandably go for the "claim" but , if I can read character at all, you do so with a grain of salt and a wink!

Irrespective , knowing the Arab/Moslem scene much more intimately than you do, I can confirm, for whatever it is worth, that there is, there are NO serious, or semi serious, or tentative Moslem claim(s)on either Spain or Greece both of which are friendly nation states populated by their legitimate indigenous, native populations
.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Professor Eckstein is shameless and incurable liar and is a dishonest fabricator of falsehoods dressed as as truth.

Together I propose we look at his latest LIE:

"As Omar Baker has made clear, the response of the Palestinians (and the Arabs) to wage a genocidal war against Israel as a result of all this is a CHOICE."(#103007)

Wehere ever did I state , concede or "made clear" that the Arab choice was for "a GENOCIDAL war against Israel...."???
I am truly amazed how a university, no matter how low and sub grade it is , will put up with a LIAR like Peofessor Eckstein???
When caught with such blatant LIES or sub civil statements, in the past, Professor Eckstein used to apologize...but such lies from a Professor are beyond apology for a self respecting school, to say nothing about a self respecting UNIVERSITY.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr Clarke
That Israel is an Apartheid nation/state born out of the dislocation, dispossession and disfranchisement of the indigenous Palestinian Arab people is a FACT that deserves full exposure and for that end I did post the number of posts you indicate.
I realize fully that none of the herd, unless a miracle of deblinding occurrs, will change but the unknowing will come to know and the interesting thing is that always a new brave name appears and that is always heartening.
(I suspect many others do exist but have not mustered the will and the courange to say so openly.)

I believe, having lived and studied in the US, that Israel enjoys the support it does there is simly due to the ignorance of the overwhelming majority of the American public of the facts and I also believe that ultimately the American public will come to know Israel for what it really is and reject it.

Hence the time and effort and, a valuable byproduct,is to come to know that sane Americans still exist, though still a small minority.

I wish you a merry Xmass, slightly belated, and a happy New Year and wish us all, even the herd, a keener attachment to justice, a greater belief in and upholding of human rights and a more postive attitude in combatting and rejecting colonialism, imperialism and racism in all its forms if we ALL want a better world for ALL.

Keep well Mr Clarke and do NOT absent yourself for too long from HNN.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Prof Eckstein

RE your #103320.
Hold your horses Prof...have a cup of cold water, take a deep breath and, hard as it may be, think of what I had to say in #103322!
(And stay away from energizers!)
OK...!?
you certainly need a vacation Prof

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Poor Prof ??? Eckstein is at a loss to find something of substance to say so , despite his voluminous posts, he constantly reverts to hurling personal insults.
I advised him several times to take a vacation if not for his own sake then for the sake of his unfortunate students..but he seemingly declines good advise.
I suspect he will end up badly; a pity for his students , for his wife and even for him; unworthy that he is of anything EXCEPT pity..

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
I always thought that you in particular will NOT do an Eckstein (ie put words in our mouths) on me or on others but you prove me deluded in this respect.
Where ever did I state, as you claim, that:" the views of the refugees do not matter. "???

Is it something in the blood?

No I do NOT believe it is; it must be then the blindness and the absolute self centeredness of the herd.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

What you are saying Mr Green is :
with so many people afflicted with lung, or liver, cancer why worry or try to remedy people with cholera?
or,
in other words, :

with some children being killed by their sexual molesters why worry about people killed after being robbed?

Evil is evil and a crime is a crime; any attempt to quantify it or classify it or hierarchy it is ultimately, wittingly or unwittingly (obviously wittingly in this case), an attempt to exonerate a certain evil, or a certain crime, for being a "smaller evil" or “a less senior crime".
Neither of being "smaller" or” less senior" reduces the injustice inflicted on the victim nor the misery it caused him.
That bigger crimes were committed against others by others does not mean that the perpetrator of a certain crime shall go Scott free, unpunished and allowed to enjoy the fruits of his crime!
That is morally speaking.

Politically;

some issues are "hopeless" according to prevalent balance of power and those affected are free to forgive and forget if they so choose , what comes to my mind is Tibet versus China (Prof Eckstein will construe that as Omar with China against Tibet; we will leave him with his comprehension problems for now).
Other issues would seem to be "hopeless”, according to prevalent balance of power, but are NOT if a hitherto unused reserves of power are introduced into the power equation.

And that is exactly where Zionist Israel, the aggressive, expansionist and racist entity that dislocated, dispossessed and disfranchised the Palestinian people from and in their homeland and which denies them their inalienable Right of Return to their homeland, committed its, ultimately, mortal miscalculation.

Both pre and post 1948 Zionism and Israel met with very little real resistance.
In both eras, pre and post 1948, Israel was (still is) at the peak of its intrinsic and borrowed power while its adversary(ies) was/were, still is/are, at the bottom of its power.
That is how and why Israel won!

The historical projection is :that WILL change and Zionist Israel(as defined in most of my previous relevant posts) will perish causing, in the process, a huge amount of pain to both sides

Why the inevitability?

The answer lies in the unintegrability of a Zionist Israel in its environment, the concomitant demands its rejection will impose on it and thus the increased security threat it will be and pose to its environment which will be met in a different balance of power situation.
(If any thing Israel's nuclear arsenal decreased rather than increased its security).

I neither rejoice in nor bemoan this outlook; it is the inevitable outcome of Israel's geographical location, its mode of birth, its alien cultural identity and alien aspirations and orientation and its inborn very aggressive and racist nature.
Always speaking of a Zionist Israel, of course.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

"If Israelis said they "wished" they had Amman or the Litani, I don't think you would say that wasn't a claim being made. Oh, no." (Eckstein #103334)

Knowing the Israelis and their pernicious , rapacious, aggressive, expansionist and racist alma matter , Zionism, of course I will NOT say "that wasn't a claim being made. Oh, no."

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Prof????Eckstein
Re your post 103849.

You should recall that I wrote a long post belying your contention that I call for the "Destruction" of Israel by reiterating that my stand, and the way out as I perceive it, is "the Dezionization of Israel and the Palestinization of Palestine."

Dezionization being, as I have often defined it: the ridding of Israel of the dogma, Zionism, whose goal, policies and practices aim at achieving "An exclusively, or predominantly, Jewish nation/state in Palestine.".

You responded, as you confirm in your post #103849 , with references to and quotes from Hamas with your and Mr Friedman's interpretations of and divinations from Hamas policies and declarations in a typical "his master's voice " replay of arguments totally irrelevant to the point I made which is : the "destruction" versus the "dezionization" of Israel.

So you actually, truly, specifically had NOTHING OF SUBSTANCE to say because:

1- The Hamas quotes and references do not touch on the principle/idea /concept of DEZIONIZATION.
2-YOU, Prof ???Eckstein, had nothing, substantial or insubstantial, of your own to say since all that you did was recapitulate, repost, rehash, re deploy Friedman's arguments.

Hence my assertion, when you called me a liar,:
"Poor Prof ??? Eckstein is at a loss to find something of substance to say so , despite his voluminous posts, he constantly reverts to hurling personal insults."

Take a vacation Prof???, a long vacation, you need it badly
.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr Friedman
NO it is NOT OK!
And that, "I understood" of yours, is a deliberate , conscious misinterpretation of my meaning.
Your statement:
"I gather you now do not hold the view that the right of return is inalienable."
IS EALSE and INCORRECT.
Is that your second or third attempt at doing an Eckstein on me ? Hiding behind the ambiguity of "I gather"?
I will NOT be surprised if you will repeat that inane (Ecksteined)interpretation of my views in a future rencontre.
I am for the "Dezionization of Israel and the Palestinization of Palestine" about which I posted more than once.
That a Zionist Israel is a racist entity is, by the way, a FACT and a reality for all to see; it is NOT a rant whether you like it or NOT.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

."No, they don't you idiot"

Impoliteness seems to be a major inborn building block of your character and psyche Prof??? Eckstein.
Can not you be anything but abusive?
Dearth of words?. dearth of ideas? Dearth of intellect?
Dearth of civility?
Actually it Dearth of all

All and greater is the pity on and for your students Prof???.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

To try to justify and exonerate a major Crime committed in the 20th century and the ongoing crimes by the same monster, Israel,in the 21st cenrury by invoking other, alleged and correct, crimes of centuries past as is being attempted by its prime crime defenders Friedman and Prof??? Eckstein, IS:
-An unequivocal admission of the criminal mode of birth, policies and practices, of Israel
- Their attempt to single out a certain community for acts that have been, historically in times past, perpetrated by many, if not all, other communities is a racially driven /racist attempt to denigrate that community.
-Their unmistakable , semi avowed, admission that now, that they have the wherewithal for it, it is their "turn " to slaughter, plunder and destroy ; as Israel actually does with their fervent support.
-Their "as others did" ,in times gone by, attitude and rationale is a blind revangist mentality that betrays their bottled up hatred of all human kind and their "get even" approach to the problems of modern times.

In other words it is confirmation of the flagrant facts that:

1- Zionism is a RETROGRESSIVE dogma and movement in that it had applied, in the 20th century, the era of people's right to Self Determination, the practices of the 7th century.
Thus negating 13 (thirteen) centuries of human progress which witnessed the progress of human kind from the era of marauding tribes to the era of settled communities.

2-
As such Israel is truly a throw back to the era of marauding tribes ,in search of better pastures, that unhesitatingly dislocated the weaker tribe residing in the land it coveted and supplanted it by naked force.

3-
This mode of "nation/state" building of Israel together with the fact that its human element was based on a single confessional community with a very heavy reliance on an assumed single ethnicity and wide spread pretensions of a common racial provenance, make Zionism an arch retrogressive, aggressive and racist dogma that moulded its offspring, Israel, into the plundering, marauding, aggressive expansionist and racist nation/state that it, undeniably, IS.

4-
A Zionist Israel, that is an exclusively or predominantly Jewish nation/state, is a historical anachronism that will perish in due course because of its retrogressive and hugely aggressive (the dislocation, dispossession and disfranchisement of the indigenous Arab Palestinian people) mode of birth and its intrinsic aggressive and racist character."

What we have here is a lawyer’s and a Professor of history confirmation of the true nature of both Zionism and the monster it begot Israel via their pathetic attempts to justify and exonerate its criminal mode of birth and its criminal record!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Mr Getz
Would you care to elaborate; you seem to hint at an important point.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Nothing funny about it!
As far as Palestine is concerned, not human kind, Israel is a historical throw back by some 13 centuries !

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Prof???Eckstein
Deception being,seemingly, part and parcel of your daily routine, brought about and nurtured since childhood, your first not second nature, you see it every where!
Understandable.
What you are doing and saying is trying to deceive others, in the process you seem to have deceived yourself.
The glaring historical facts for all to see is that Zionism is a racist dogma that colonized Palestine by dislocating, dispossessing and disfranchising its indigenous Arab Palestinian inhabitants and supplanting them with aliens collected on pure RACIST basis .
Every thing else is a detail.
An equally glaring fact is that the Palestinian Arabs did NOT nor will they EVER give up their rights in their homeland ...no matter what and no matter how long it takes.
The thief and the usurper will never enjoy his loot untill justice is done.

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

But as far as this topic is concerned they are ONE HERD!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Correction:
this should have read as:
"But as far as this topic is concerned they are ONE HERD here at HNN"!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Evil is evil and a crime is a crime; any attempt to quantify it or classify it or hierarchy it is ultimately, wittingly or unwittingly (obviously wittingly in this case), an attempt to exonerate a certain evil, or a certain crime, for being a "smaller evil" or “a less senior crime".
Neither of being "smaller" or” less senior" reduces the injustice inflicted on the victim nor the misery it caused him.
That bigger crimes were committed against others by others does not mean that the perpetrator of a certain crime shall go Scott free, unpunished and allowed to enjoy the fruits of his crime!

omar ibrahim baker -
10/19/2007

Contrary to all expectations YA has raised an interesting point: Arab and Moslem reappraisal, criticism if you want, of all things Arab and Moslem.

Many did : apart from M.Abdo, Abdul Razek and Afghani in the early thiries-twenties the second half of the 20th century had, among others, a now very silent Khaled M Khaled simultaneously with, but very differently, from S.Kutub and more recently M.Shahrur , Ghanoushi, and Al Awa etc etc.
All ASPECTS of Arab and/or Moslem life and Islamic, as distinct from Islamist, thought were being reappraised and severly scrutinized by Arab and Moslem scholars UNTILL Islam became the declared enemy of the West by the Zionist-neocon school of thought and a REFORMED Islam, by Zionist neocon standards, became a declared political aim of the Zionist-neocon alliance.
At that stage, as is normal and expected, ALL closed ranks against the declared enemy and a united front was sought by ALL.
However the appraisal and reappraisal process, which is more than ever a purely INTERNAL affair, is still going on within the ranks of all Arab and/or Moslem and Islamist scholars by Arab and/or Moslem scholars .
To my knowledge few of the output of this reappraisal have been translated into foreign languages.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

Mr. Mocker's query is indeed irrelevant to the issue of how to deal with the Israeli-Palestinian feud (and that issue is itself irrelevant to Troy's nitpicking of Carter's book title), but not for the damn-the-world reasons asserted by Mr. Kovachev.

Of course Israel's creation and continued existence is due to "a unique set" of historical circumstances. What state was NOT thusly created?

If Italy did not exist today would the world allow the Milanese to rule the Sicilians? If the USA did not exist would South Carolina unite with Vermont? Would the UN have sanctioned the ethnic cleansing of the native North American tribes to begin with?

To use Carter's analogy (which is lame, but not as lame as most of the high school bathroom wall grafitti covering this page), the remedy for the problems and injustices of apartheid in South Africa was not to send the Whites trekking back to the Netherlands.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

Much more than your English stinks, Amitz. Happy New Year -which we celebrate on January 1 in America- and good luck finding running water to wash in.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

The issue is not who is to blame for allowing guilty to escape punishment, the issue is the deeply-rooted amorality of someone who exploits an opportunity to get filthy rich, for the sole purpose of satisfying his own greed for money.
He who does so cannot comment on issues of morality with any sizable degree of credibility.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

exploits an opportunity to get filthy rich, BY HELPING THE GUILTY CHEAT JUSTICE, AND DOES SO for the sole purpose of satisfying his own greed for money.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

For the links.

Now please tell us how Hypocrite Dershowitz spent the bundle he made helping the LA murderer. Maybe it all went to the terrorist-harboring West Bank settlements you represent with your paranoid crybabying all over HNN?

I doubt it went to bonafide charities, but who knows. After you wash your mouth with soap, maybe you can devote a bit of the time you waste on the web to finding out.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

Mr. D is certainly not alone in what he does, nor is there a law against it. Indeed the system encourages rich guilty people to spend their wealth evading justice by hiring skilled talent to find loopholes they can escape through. But, it is rare to have such a shark writing widely circulated moralizing sermons. My beef is with such hypocrisy, not with members of any religious faith, even one over-represented on this website.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

The other guy is always wrong, blatantly biased, using inflammatory, inaccurate, and misleading words, and I never am or do.

Fascism is a much broader term than Apartheid, but a lack of democracy, free press, and gay rights, is not surely not central to any operative definition of fascism by any credible historian.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

We don't have steak instead of pasta, we have a rusted, twisted, and utterly unusable spoon for serving dog meat instead of either pasta OR steak.

The map showing the dispersion of "settlements" of terrorist and fanatic Israelis, and fenced-in Palestinian ghettos, across the West Bank, resembles nothing so much as apartheid South Africa. That alone would suffice as an excuse for Carter's title, even if there were no other similarities between the generally brutal, cowardly and unworkable policies of Israel towards the occupied terriorites and the doomed racist oppression of pre de Klerc South Africa. These parllels do not suffice to make Carter's book, fairminded, historically viable or credible as a guide to future policy, but what kneejerk the-current-rulers-of Israel-are-always-right (no matter who they are or what they do) propagandist
ever gave a hoot about viable policy or history?

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

By Herr Eckstein's latest perverse guilt-by-association non-historical illogic above, Jews had no right to complain about Nazis "striking back," after Jews assasinated a few of them in the 1930s and '40s.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

"'Might is right' is, whether you like t or not, what we have always had and regardless of pretenses, always will have. Competent, technologically advanced and better organized populations have always absorbed or displaced weaker ones."
So pontificateth the ever two-tongued Mr. P.K.

Thus spake also the Nazis, in their "Drang nach Lebensraum," pushing weaker peoples out of their way, and into concentration and extermination camps.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

Mr. Baker,

You have now posted something like 40 comments already to this page, helping give it one of the all time highest (if not THE all time highest) number of "hits" of any comment page ever on HNN. Do you think this silly nitpicking semantical slam of Jimmy Carter's book title is worthy of such exalted designation?

I certainly regret having put over a dozen comments here myself.

Best wishes for a more open-minded and less wasteful new year,

PKC

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

Yes, I think your views of history are stupid, Mr. Kovachev. But, you are not stupid, you are a shameless hypocrite who speaks out of both sides of his mouth in order to keep up a motor-mouth campaign of propaganda in favor of Israeli hardliners, and which would let the interests of the rest of the world, including the majority of Israelis and Jews, be damned. If you had an ounce of integrity, you would move to a West Bank settlement and join your fellow fanatics there.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

...(for a change)...but Dershowitz, the man who made millions helping OJ get away with murder, has no morals and no credibility.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

No N. That ("no peace to be had") is your misleading summation of what is actually a much more complex calculus.

At any rate, if that summation is in some ultimate sense valid, it does not follow that any old boneheaded and counterproductive war policy is therefore always justified. There are ways to wage war without shooting oneself in the foot over and over again, and without going on endless insult campaigns of anyone who questions the bonehead war blundering in the slightest way. SUCH endless insult campaigns are evidenced in tens of thousands of comments posted to HNN over recent years. This is stupid, profoundly unAmerican, and reeks of hypocrisy.

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

Where have you been Simon?
Obviously not learning how to lie more convincingly.

You latest crude misattribution:

"Clarke's alternative is that the accused not be entitled to competent - even reknown - lawyers to present the evidence in their favor in their case"

is not something I ever even remotely implied.

Can't you at least stop lying for the holiday season?

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

...as I already explained, Simon, not the US legal system however deep and many-fold its faults. How about asking Santa for a new eyeglasses prescription?

Speaking of hypocrisy, what have you got against pseudonyms, "E" ?

Peter K. Clarke -
10/9/2007

I have not read Carter's new book, but he is not known for being either a skilled historian, or a great writer, and the reviews that are coming out in press indicate that this book of his has numerous faults, at least some of which are attributable to those lacks. If HNN were the serious intellectual place it sometimes pretends to be, we might have had such a thoughtful review here too. Possibly with a historical dimension added.

Instead, along comes another pitiful two-bit slam by Mr. Troy who gives not the slightest indication of having read Carter's book either. His critique here fixates wholly on the obviously symbolic title of the book.

The very real and serious moral and practical failings of recent governments of Israel, and of their disastrously incompetent current rubberstampers in Washington DC, and the apparently serious deficiencies in Carter's analysis of Israeli policy towards the Palestinians depend not a whit on rush-job semantical nitpicking of the kind Troy engages in here.

art eckstein -
12/31/2006

Dear Mr. Green,

Karsh is certainly correct about theTurkish decision to enter WWI on the side of the Central Powers (i.e., Germany): that was the Turkish government's (the Young Turks') own action; they weren't passive or the acted-upon-by-the-West; they had various imperialist dreams.

It is clear that people like Barrie Lambert do not believe that Third World people (or, anyway, Palestinians) have ANY responsibility for their actions, or act as AGENTS (not objects) in History. It's a paternalistic and deeply racist view (as well as being, of course, totally inaccurate). This is a very widespread view among elites in the West, including academic elites, which leads to the excusing of the most absolutely grotesque barbarities (or, the more usual stance, the attempt at ignoring such barbarities, followed by anger when facts are pointed out).

The academic left has never forgiven the U.S. for defeating the Soviet Union and "the dream of socialism." From the 1960s, it always accepted that "ANY enemy of the U.S. and (American) capitalism will do, and deserves our support.." Now they have even climbed into bed with Islamofascist monsters from the Dark Ages. My favorite is Judith Butler, who proclaimed at UC Berkeley in September that "It is important to note that Hezbollah [with its Nazi salutes, derogation of women, grotesque anti-semitism out of the Middle Ages, and pervasive use of civilian human shields] is a part of the International Left."
It's an intellectual disgrace.

art eckstein -
12/31/2006

The RACISTS, Omar, are those who intentionally target ANY Jews (old, young, children, women, whatever) as long as they ARE Jews--as in pizza parlors or discoteques or busses--and who then APOLOGIZE when they kill Arabs who merely LOOK like Jews instead, when they intended only to kill Jews. If you go back through this blog, you will find two separate cases of that, one the George Khoury case (he was out jogging), another an Arab woman who worked as an administrator for a humanitarian organization and was murdered "by accident."

THAT is REAL RACISM. Everything else that you retail is simply leftist propaganda and leftist malevolent slander. You've simply learned by rote to recite this leftist pap when faced with actual facts and evidence and logical argument, none of which make any impression on you. You're an intellectual primitive.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/31/2006

To respond to two of your queries, barrie. I'm sorry I did not respond earlier to them.
--You ask for evidence that Jerusalem Arabs preferred to stay in Jerusalem under Israeli rule rather than be under arafat/PLO rule.-- For instance, the IHT ran an article on this subject back in the 1990s. The IHT [or maybe NYT] reporter interviewed Arabs in several Jerusalem neighborhoods. Most said that they did not want to be part of arafat's palestinian authority, although would have preferred an Arab state to Israel, if the Arab state on offer were better in a whole series of ways to arafat's PA.
-- you get into the skin color red herring by speculating that young Khoury was trying to pass for Jewish because he was light-skinned, like Lena Horne or whomever in Imitation of Life. In fact, many Jews are darker than many Arabs, that includes some of my own family. Skin color is a red herring in the Arab-Israeli conflict. I usually can tell who's an Arab and who's a Jew, but not by skin color and usually not at first glance. But see how this skin color misconception contradicts the view of Jews in Britain 100 years ago, when the novel Trilby presented a swarthy Jew [Svengali] as the villain. The Nazis in Germany too stressed Jews as dark and therefore evil, etc. You have just reversed the prejudice. But why don't you look up how the British press treated the member of the Sassoon family who was swarthy and yet made it into the inner circle of the Prince of Wales in the late 19th century. This Sassoon fellow was a proficient --indeed excellent-- athlete and horseman, etc. His very talent elicited hatred for him. It was scandalous!! A brown-skinned Jew who was equal to an English gentleman!!
While you're looking things up, check William Penn's opinion that the Indians in Pennsylvania looked like Jews.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/31/2006

Art & N,
my response to your comments above somehow migrated above to a comment labeled something like "Parallels to the Czech Crisis circa 1938..."
These are very interesting comments.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/31/2006

Art, I think you are quite right to stress the parallels with Czechoslovakia circa 1936-38. Even William Shirer's book [Rise & Fall of Nazi Germany(title??)] has some of the parallels with contemporary anti-Israel discourse. Shirer, as I recall, writes that Hitler brought up slogans like "self-determination" and "justice," in favor of Germany annexing Sudetenland. Bennet's book on the Czech crisis contains the Runciman Report which actually accuses the Czechs of planting alien colonies of Czechs in the Sudetenland!! A parallel right there! By the way, not only British imperialists like Neville C. condemned the Czechs. The Comintern and the French CP sided with German revanchiste and pan-German claims [as to Alsace!!, the Saar, etc.] in the period before Hitler's rise to power. On this I recommend an article by Georges Goriely in LeMonde circa 1987. Goriely probably offers the same view in other publications that I have not read. As you point out, the parallels are amazing -- and frightening.

N, I think that nowadays views or opinions that have essentially religious roots take on a secular cover, even a "leftist" coloration, as you pointed out about Omar's use of "racist, "colonialist," etc. In Barrie's case, I would say the same, although many Christians have very different views of Israel than he does.
Now, when you point to the double standards used regarding the "Third World" or "non-Western" world, they require suppressing or minimizing a lot of news that comes out of places like Sudan, Pakistan, etc. It is also bizarre that the remnants of the so-called "Marxist left" do not see the oil rich Arab states [and Brunei for that matter] as major capitalist-imperialist powers. After all, they own a lot of capital and real estate in Europe and the USA.
It is peculiar that the apologies and double standards favoring certain [not all] "Third World" states and peoples often come from the Western elites.
Why is that?
Anyhow, you point out that often, Non-Western or Third World states and peoples are always seen as passive objects, without any will or independence of their own. Countering this, Efraim Karsh wrote that the Ottoman Empire [under the Young Turk "Committee of Unity and Progress"] was eager to get into WW One on the side of the Central powers. The initiative came from them, Karsh says.

Then came the Armenian massacre which theorists of Third World or Muslim World passivity and helplessness [like Edward Said] usually overlook --I believe-- because it can't fit into their theories.

N. Friedman -
12/31/2006

Omar,

If you say so, Omar. Try reading what I said, since it undermines the bulk of your argument.

art eckstein -
12/31/2006

N.F. writes:

The form of the critique is:

"In analyzing disputes involving the West or Israel, the actual behavior of the opponent is irrelevant (e.g. can be understood entirely as a reaction to the West or Israel, as if the opponent was not an independent actor in any sense of the word). Rather than examine the opponent's objectives or motivations or behavior as part of understanding the dispute, a moral critique of the West is given; and the entire dispute is understood in that context. And the punch line runs something akin to "We have sinned" and so bad things are and will be happening."

This is exactly the intellectual situation. Note that Omar, a representative of the most imperialistic culture on earth, has been taught this approach, and employs it.: hence his charges of "racism" and "colonialism", which are supposed to end all conversation from the other side. And he is infuriated when it does not work, as here on HNN.

Omar deploys this tactic in debate with us either because he believes it (in which case--as I suspect to be the case--he is simply an ignorant and unteachable barbarian), or because he is a total cynic (since the paradigm is obviously untrue as a paradigm of interstate interaction).
Barrie Lambert deploys this tactic for either one of the same two reasons.

N. Friedman -
12/31/2006

Correction. I misread your comment. I should not have stated that I disagree. We clearly do basically agree.

N. Friedman -
12/31/2006

Omar,

You are misreading Elliott. His is the obvious point that Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely in response to Jewish nationalism. That is a widely held view among scholars that corresponds with the fact that (a) there was no state that corresponds to what you call Palestine for a people who, no matter how named, correspond with people who today are called Palestinian Arabs, (b) there was no separate language that distinguished Palestinian Arabs from Jordanian or Syrian Arabs, (c) there was no cultural marker to distinguish Palestinian Arabs from Jordanian Arabs or Syrian Arabs, (d) the ruler of the land for the last two thousand years have not been local but, in each case, an empire and (e) most importantly, the religion of the majority of those who call themselves Palestinian Arabs basically opposes separate countries but, instead, one people, which means that Palestinian Arab nationalism is a new thing. Understand, Omar, that is not a bad thing or an unusual thing. But, it is true. And it is worth noting that point (e) is effectively conceded by the HAMAS in their charter where they seek to turn the land into a Muslim waqf.

Consider, Omar, that the idea of any modern state really is alien to classical Islamic theology. To rule just a state would be considered an insult to a ruler. Rather, the ruler would be called Sovereign of Islam in order to align his territory with Islamic notions of creating one universal order under that would encompass all the world. Or, in simple terms, the group you call Palestinian Arabs would not, prior to very recent times, have considered themselves to be Palestinian Arabs. They more likely would have seen themselves as Muslims or Muslim Arabs.

N. Friedman -
12/31/2006

Elliott,

I agree with your view regarding Jews not being considered Europeans in Europe but not being considered Europeans outside of Europe. I think that is beyond any doubt.

As for the religion comment, I disagree. I think that the critique made by the pseudo-left regarding the West and regarding Israel is, in fact, rather religious in the prophetic tradition.

The form of the critique is:

In analyzing disputes involving the West or Israel, the actual behavior of the opponent is irrelevant (e.g. can be understood entirely as a reaction to the West or Israel, as if the opponent was not an independent actor in any sense of the word). Rather than examine the opponent's objectives or motivations or behavior as part of understanding the dispute, a moral critique of the West is given; and the entire dispute is understood in that context. And the punch line runs something akin to "We have sinned" and so bad things are and will be happening.

Needless to say the prophetic model for the people of Israel: when the people of Israel sinned, they were collectively punished.

So, maybe it is not quite religion. But, it is very religious.

As for my wander the Earth comment - which is what I assume you actually had in mind with your comment about religion -, such is somewhat an implicit point of a person who sees Palestinian Arabs as having a special connection to land while Jews do not. I chose 150 years ago for no special reason. I could have gone further back in time.

art eckstein -
12/31/2006

Mr. Green,

You well point out the contradiction here:

1. In Europe, Jews were seen by the European elite as alien and greedy greasy orientals--a view that culminated in the Holocaust.

2. Since 1948 (I would say really only since 1973 or 1982), with very few Jews now LEFT in Europe (thanks to the Holocaust), Jews are now seen by the European elite as EUROPEAN "colonialists", colonizing an "alien land" filled with authentic orientals (namely, Arabs, Palestinians).

The conceptual contradiction here is blatant: if the Jews were really Europeans, why were 90% of them murdered as greasy non-European orientals, whose very presence in Europe polluted European genetics (bloodlines)? If they are NOT Europeans but are actually orientals, then why begrudge them MORALLY the right to a land in which they have always had a presence?

Barrie Lambert's grotesque morally inverted attitude and his intellectual dishonesty (which I view as a necesary consequence of his moral inversion) constitute only a specimen of this much larger European disease. This combination of attitudes allows European elites to STILL have vicious contempt for Jews, but now they have projected onto Jews the old European 19th century colonialism, and the guilt that bien-pensant liberalism attached to it starting after 1918. And this allows them to STILL condemn Jews on the same old "polluting" grounds, only now it's the Middle East they're polluting.

The issue I myself have raised with such people, and the reason I have brought up the Czechoslovakia parallel is this:

it is one thing to talk objectively about dangerous strategic realities, and to express sympathy for those caught in very difficult strategic situations (not that it is hopeless, but I think you see my point); it is another thing to say that you just can't help them, given those difficult strategic circumstances (though that is already morally dubious); but it is quite another thing ENTIRELY to morally CONDEMN those in a difficult strategic situation for DEFENDING themselves, AS YOU BETRAY THEM, and as a way of giving you an EXCUSE TO BETRAY THEM.

THAT is the grotesque moral situation that occurred with Czechoslovakia, and that is what is occurring again in Europe with Israel, and that is what Lambert is doing. He soothes his conscience by blaming the Israelis for everything, just as Chamberlain and the other appeasers soothed their consciences about betraying Czechoslovakia by falsely blaming the Czechs for not committing suicide soon enough and for seeking to defend themselves against Nazi pressure. They even condemned the Czechs as racists, who rightly denied it, whereas it was the Nazis who were the real and indeed proclaimed racists, but Chamberlain and his friends ignored that..

THIS is the parallel I have forcefully pointed out. My history isn't bad on this, I'm quite knowledgeable (see the bibliography I gave N.F.), despite Barrie Lambert's claims (which of course he never backed up--whereas I have cited chapter and verse, quotations, EVIDENCE). No, my history isn't bad on this; it's the HISTORY itself that's bad here, and it is being repeated.

Thank you for your informative postings.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/31/2006

Omar, thank you for confirming what the PLO charter states. Then you ask what should we call the Arabs in the country often denoted in the West by the name palestine. The Arabs themselves did not see a separate country of "palestine" or "Filastin." They traditionally viewed the country as part of Syria or Greater Syria, that is, Bilad ash-Sham. The Jews lived in that country as the indigenous people long before the Arab conquest of the 7th century. Thus, if you accept the notion of a right of return as a general principle, this right pertains to the Jews not the Arabs. You do agree with me that the Arabs in the country are merely a territorially defined segment or section of the Arab nation, like Texans or Virginians. You agree that they are not a separate nation or people. The name Filastin was used after the Arab conquest only for the southern part of the country, what the Romans/Byzantines had called Palaestina Prima [see Encyc of Islam]. The Romans in the heyday of their empire had called the whole country Judea [IVDAEA], later changing the nme to Syria Palaestina after suppressing the Bar Kokhba revolt as a way of oppressing and punishing the Jews. Even Arab historiography, such as Ibn Khaldun and the Qur'an itself, recognize Jewish priority in the Land of Israel, called Holy Land in the Qur'an [5:20-22].

Elliott Aron Green -
12/31/2006

N, I do see a certain religious ingredient in Barrie's views, as I discussed in a previous post. Of course, some Christian views hold that Jews are doomed to wander forever, as you say. Eusebios and other Church Fathers said that more or less, long ago.

Now, you mention 150 years ago. Actually, Jews have usually been seen as aliens in Europe over the past 2000 years. For instance, the German philosopher Kant wrote that the German Jews were "The Palestinians who live among us." Rather ironic in view of today's discourse on Israelis. Voltaire called the ancient Jews "a tribe of Arabs." Again ironic.
The bottom line is that the Jews were considered alien to Europe. This view culminated in the Holocaust, as I see things. What has happened since 1948 is that the Eurobigots have mentally transferred the Jews' alien nature from Europe to the Middle East. Now, Jews are said to have been truly, quintessentially European [it's a little late for the Holocaust victims], although this is usually said by implication. Jews returning to the Land of Israel are now said to be really European colonists, horrendous colonialist settlers. All of the Western guilt for the Holocaust is erased because of alleged, post-facto [post-Holocaust] Jewish/Israeli/Zionist crimes. Further, all the European guilt over colonialism is dropped onto the Jews' shoulders. Quite a neat trick that Barrie and his friends have there. They kill two birds with one stone, as it were.

N. Friedman -
12/31/2006

Art,

Barrie's argument posits Palestinians as having a special connection to land and Jews as having none.

Is that not a familiar argument, maybe 150 years ago. Actually, is it not the traditional religious argument that Jews must wander the Earth forever?

Maybe, and more to the point, Barrie is an extreme reactionary advocating for ascribed inherited privileges. Or, in simple English, he is an extreme reactionary.

art eckstein -
12/30/2006

What better example that these stories of Arab/Palestinian racism do you need, Barrie, in order to see the truth?

But that's evidently not what you care about.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/30/2006

before Sharon went up on the Temple Mount, there were several stabbings of Jews by Arabs in Northern Jerusalem [Neveh Ya`aqov]. The same day that Sharon went up, early in the morning before he went up, a bomb planted at the Netsarim junction killed an Israeli soldier although he did not die right away. I think his name was David Biri or David Barashi.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/30/2006

Don't forget that Jews are the majority of the population and that the Arabs themselves mostly want separate education for religious reasons and because they think that their culture is superior.
Your definition is very loose and could be applied to many places besides South Africa.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/30/2006

I suggest looking at the website www.seconddraft.com [or something close] which is operated by Prof Richard Landis, a historian. The reasonable conclusion from the evidence that Landis presents is that the al-Durah boy was probably not killed at all. French journalists, Denis Jeambar and Daniel Leconte wrote in LeFigaro that it was unlikely that the boy had been killed by Israeli troops. They wrote this after viewing the "outtakes," the film taken on the same day in the same place by the same cameraman, an Arab himself [film that was not used on TV]. The outtakes or rushes show that political theater was going on, not murder by an Israeli soldier.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/30/2006

On the Khoury murder. I think that I probably know more about the context than does our good denizen of the Highlands or the Lowlands.
Young Khoury's grandfather was killed in a terrorist bombing in Zion Square in downtown Jerusalem about 35 years ago, along with about ten Jews. His father was a lawyer and did legal work for the palestinian authority. On this ground, I suggest that he was not a "collaborator" working for Israel in your terms. Further, I very strongly doubt that the murderers knew who he was, since there had been several other cases of murders at night of people on the street in Jewish neighborhoods in the same general area as French Hill [actually, HaHayil Street is in Tsameret haBirah], in Giv`at haMivtar and Ramat Shafat, for example.
Let's not forget the case of the young Arab woman, the expert on public health, who was stabbed to death by a fellow Arab on her way to work in the morning at a UN agency working for the Arabs' benefit. The murderer in this case remorsefully gave himself up to Israeli police after learning that he had killed a fellow Arab. He specifically stated that he didn't know who she was, and that if he had known she was an Arab, he wouldn't have killed her. This occurred in January 1999, as I recall. There have been several other cases of Arabs killed by fellow Arabs because they were taken for Jews, although the circumstances were different.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/30/2006

by the way, Art, after WW2 when Armenia was clearly a part of the USSR, the Soviet Armenian republic had a "Zionist" policy. Ethnic Armenians were urged to return, even though Soviet Armenia was [and is] much smaller than historic Armenia whence the ancestors of many or most of the Armenians came from. For example, an Armenian whose family came from the southern shore of Lake Van, now in Turkey, was invited to return to Soviet Armenia, not exactly the area his family had originated from. Of course, I realize that he would not be welcome in Turkey and probably would not feel safe there.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/30/2006

1--There never was a palestinian people in all history. The Arabs did not believe in such a people. The PLO charter asserts the Arab nature of the "palestinian Arab people"
2-- Arabs usurped the Land of Israel in the Middle Ages
3-- Arab/Muslims in Israel and elsewhere traditionally oppressed Jews as dhimmis, along with other non-Muslims. This treatment varied in severity with time and place. In some places, such as Jerusalem, the local Muslims imposed pecuniary exactions on Jews going beyond the tribute demanded of dhimmis in shari`ah law.

Now, to Gen'l Ass'bly Res. 194:
All General Assembly resolutions on political matters are merely recommendations, according to the UN charter itself [see articles 10-12]. So a recommendation is not law. Israel is not obliged to accept a recommendation, just as the Arabs did not feel obliged to accept the earlier Partition Plan recommendation of 29 November 1947 [GA res 187]. The Arabs were the first ones in that war to drive people, Jews, out of their homes, starting in December 1947 in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, etc. The Arabs' pre-1939 demand that Jews [including refugees from Hitler] be kept out of the country, out of the Jewish homeland, the internationally designated Jewish National Home, had earlier served the British govt as a pretext for doing just that and facilitating the Holocaust, which seems to have been UK policy at the time.
There is no legal or moral ground for demanding that Israel take back the 1948 refugees, especially considering the precedents of India/Pakistan/Bangladesh, of the Czech Sudetenland, of East Prussia, Pomerania, Silesia, etc., transferred from Germany to Poland and the USSR, of Finnish Karelia transferred to the USSR. The European boundary changes were endorsed by the 1975 Helsinki treaty, in so many words.

N. Friedman -
12/30/2006

N. Friedman -
12/30/2006

Barrie,

You now have a definition of an apartheid state, namely, "Apartheid is a legally defined and enforceable system of segregation and discrimination designed to ensure the seperate development of different racial, ethnic or religious groups." But, then you claim, as evidence, "The very fact that Palestinians who have a direct connection with the land do not have the right to return [in a settler state] when Jews who have no connection with the land do have the right to 'return' is the very Mother and Father of Apartheid."

How does the first definition apply to your evidence? Your definition requires both "segregation" and "discrimination." Immigration policy does not segregate, since segregation pertains to where people live in a country or what schools people attend in a country, not who may immigrate to a country. So, right off the bat, your definition does not seem to apply to the evidence you cite.

Then, you say something really odd. You claim that Palestinian Arabs have some special attachment to a particular piece of land land. Leaving aside that a reasonably large percentage of Palestinian Arab Muslims were, themselves, immigrants and leaving aside that the Ottoman Empire settled a large number of Muslim refugees from the Balkans in Northern Israel during the 19th Century. And leaving aside that a great many Palestinian Arab Christians came to the country as refugees as well. Let us leave these obvious problems to one side.

Instead, I note that your argument could only be held by a true reactionary. In that you claim not to be a reactionary, you might consider that no true Leftist could hold your view with a straight face. And, a true Marxist would surely cringe. And, so would a liberal or a socialist.

Let me get to the point, so that you will understand why I apply the term "reactionary" to your position. Your position is essentially the argument made by the aristocracy to maintain privileges over those not fortunate enough to have land.

Here is a question for you. To what land do Jews, as a group, have a direct connection? That is an obvious problem with your position since, for a person who does not believe in discrimination, you discriminate in your thinking between people connected to a land a people not as fortunate.

My view: people are not plants that can grow only in one type of soil. Palestinian Arabs are accordingly not plants. As such, Palestinian Arabs can prosper without being in Israel.

Now, removing what is basically an argument for aristocratic privileges for Palestinian Arabs (i.e. that they are attached to land while Jews are not), an immigration policy that favors one group over another could not possibly be a form of segregation. Why? Because, Barrie, segregation involves separating people in a country, not who enters a country.

Now, it is certainly true that all countries that have immigration policies - which means, all countries on Earth, except for countries that do not allow immigration at all - discriminate. So, presumably, you do not have that in mind when you speak about discrimination in the context of immigration. Which is to say, I do not see how immigration could be deemed a form of "discrimination." Once, again, your definition does not apply to the facts you cite. It applies, instead, to your idea of inherited aristocratic privileges.

Lastly, you claim that Israel's immigration policy occurs in the context of being a "settler state." I find that term rather odd, although some people on the far Left use it. As I understand the world, with the exception of perhaps some parts of Africa, all states were formed by settlers or their offspring. So, in some sense, all states are "settler states."

Question: with the above in mind - and in the hope of making sense of your statement -, at what point does a settler state cease being a "settler state"? For example, Arabs spread by conquest and colonization. The term, in Islamic theology, for that process is "Fatah" (literally, "opening"). Which is to say, Jihad leads to Fatah. And, by such process, the Arabs conquered and colonized far and wide. At what point did the Arab Muslim settler state - really an empire - cease being a settler state? Or, is there no statute of limitations?

Is Cuba a "settler state"?

Now, here is a suggestion for you Barrie. To quote a famed columnist from your country:

One thing is not another thing. What makes a thing the thing it is and not something else is not just a question for artists and intellectuals, it is the question. Where all things look the same, there is no life of the mind.

*************

This is not a species of scholasticism, verbal fastidiousness for its own sake. If we do not properly describe what a thing is like and not like, we do not know what it is. It is in the nature of hatred not to know what a thing is like and not to care. Which is why we say that hatred is blind. Indeed, one of the signs that hatred is being brewed, in an individual or a community, is the deliberate wedding of like to unlike. Brutes yoke unlikes together in haste, enjoying that surge in emotional violence that blurring all distinctions brings.

Now, you may not like Israel - which is your privilege - and you may be a hard core reactionary interested in using Israel to rekindle the idea of landed hereditary privilege - which is also your privilege -. And, you may also think that Jews, being the quintessential people without a land (until recently), ought wander the Earth forever, as many reactionaries like you think. But, that does not mean you can call Israel an apartheid state when, by the very definition and evidence you provided, Israel is not. That makes you not only wrong but a fool or a bigot, or maybe even both.

Got it?

N. Friedman -
12/30/2006

Barrie,

Fine, to make you happy, I shall accept your definition, since it is what you claim apartheid to be.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/30/2006

hang out, I guess. Sorry my English stinks :)

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

This is only one strand in the story, Barrie. It's a very complicated story, and responsible people have come to different conclusions, in part based on the release of the full 27 minutes of the Palestinian tape. I don't know who Esther Shapira is. I do know of Nahum Shahaf, General Yom Tov Samia, and James Fallows, editor of The Atlantic Monthly (and no friend of neoconservatives, or even much of a friend of Israel).

There are simply a lot of responsible people who disagree with you, and for you to cite Palestinian propaganda as "the truth", and Israeli investigation as "propaganda" shows where your heart is.

And let me add this: even if the truth WERE as you say it is (which I do NOt accept), Muhammad al-Durrah would have to be balanced against the HUNDRED Israeli children INTENTIONALLY killed by suicide bombers. But, no--that doesn't bother you.

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

1. Notice, readers, that as usual Barrie now shifts ground when he's caught with FACTS. HE made the smug legal argument originally--
"Apartheid is a legally defined and enforceable system of segregation and discrimination"--
and now that I have shown that the legal argument does not apply to Israel he DISCARDS it when it doesn't work, appealing now to quite different alleged "first principles."

Those alleged "settler state" first principles apply to Poland, to Northern Ireland, to Pakistan--but he's not angry about THEM.

The right of return principles adopted in israel apply to TWENTY other nations besides Israel--including China, Ireland, Norway, and Finland--but he's not angry about THEM,.

In any case, the main first principle is that no state is required to commit suicide (except Israel--and Czechoslovakia, eh, Neville?) And while Palestinians do have the potential right to return under UNR 194, even there it is only if they are peaceful (which would have to be proven). It's all theoretical anyway, since they have emphatically chosen NOT to even to try to exercise that peaceful option because it is "dishonorable," and that is their proud, violent choice--as is their racist weapon of suicide bombing. Barrie, read your soulmate and intellectual peer Omar before you attempt to say anything else about this.

In any case, the 2 million Germans who fled or were kicked out of Poland in 1945 don't have the right of return, the10 million Hindus who fled or were kicked out of Pakistan don't have the right of return, the 900,000 Jews who were kicked out of the Arab/Muslim countries in 1948-1956 (that's 200,000 more people than the Palestinians) don't have the right of return either. That's the way chaotic end of WWII and decolonialization worked out.

The Palestinian case is not unique nor especially bad, and not by any means the largest, or second-largest, or even third-largest example of this sort of tragedy dating from 1945-1956.

Their appeal is to smug bien-pensant ignoramuses (or is it anti-semites?) like Barrie, and the more violent and outrageous their actions--based on "honor"--the more people like Barrie excuse those acts, as if the Palestinians were children.

Keep drinking your tea with Neville and Adolf, Barrie.

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

Hi, Art. I took your advice and checked out some of my old notes.

You state that, "...Muhammed al-Duri was a 12-year-old who got caught in a crossfire between the IDF and Palestinian terrorists. Nothing close to what you post above." Dealing with the last point first, that's because I tell the story the way it happened. What you're doing is repeating Israeli propaganda which suggests the Palestinians were, as always, the authors of their own misfortunes, an idea you certainly feel comfortable with.

The propaganda exercise went like this: Esther Shapira, a Jewish German citizen, floated a story through Ellis Schuman in the israelinsider on March 20, 2002, and broadcast it on German television channel ARD the same week. It gained some propaganda purchase in Israel and the USA because of the effort made by both governments to link the Palestinian Resistance to the War on Terror, but unsurprisingly, the rest of the world took it with a pretty heavy pinch of salt.

Ms Shapira argued that in all probability little Mohammed was not killed by Israeli gunfire. "It is not possible to determine with absolute certainty that Palestinians shot the boy, but the extensive evidence points, with high probability, to the fact that the Israelis did not do it," she told Yediot Aharonot. What Shapira probably meant to say was that “lacking all the physical evidence which was destroyed after Mohammmed’s murder gave the Israelis, and particularly Mossad, the opportunity to re-write the events leading to Mohammed’s murder on 30 September 2000."

In reaching her conclusions, Shapira relied not on evidence but the lack of evidence: no autopsy was performed after Mohammed’s death; there was no ballistic report detailing the bullets which hit the boy and determining the direction from which they were fired; and the wall behind where the boy and his father crouched for protection was destroyed by the Israelis shortly after the tragic Mohammed’s death. Reports have always circulated in Germany which suggest that Mossad, Israel's secret service, had initiated the work undertaken by Esther Shapira, and cooperated heavily in its production for German television

"Even so, it can be proven that the Israeli soldiers were stationed in low places, whereas the Gaza pathologist determined that the bullets that hit the boy were fired from above," Shapira was reported to have said in 2002. How, precisely, one might ask in 2006?

No evidence, no inference. Just a denial saying, “well, folks, as no physical evidence remains to prove conclusively that the IDF did it, the Palestinians must have done it themselves. Sherlock Holmes might not have cried, “QED”, hearing this judgement, but he certainly would have crying out for justice and greater standards of integrity in journalism.

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

You need to start with first principles when you deal with a settler state. The very fact that Palestinians who have a direct connection with the land do not have the right to return when Jews who have no connection with the land do have the right to "return" is the very Mother and Father of Apartheid. Got it now?

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

Lambert writes (oh, so smugly) the following, when asked to define apartheid:

"Apartheid is a legally defined and enforceable system of segregation and discrimination"

Whether that is a good definition or not, the emphasis on legal definition is interesting, because Lambert obviously is unfamiliar with the following Israeli Basic Law:

Rights protected by Basic Law of Human Dignity and Liberty (passed by the Knesset, 1992)

The rights protected by this law are detailed in several clauses:

* Section 2: There shall be no violation of the life, body or dignity of any person as such.
* Section 3: There shall be no violation of the property of a person.
* Section 4: All persons are entitled to protection of their life, body and dignity.
* Section 5: There shall be no deprivation or restriction of the liberty of a person by imprisonment, arrest, extradition or otherwise.
* Section 6:

* (a) All persons are free to leave Israel.
* (b) Every Israel national has the right of entry into Israel from abroad.

* Section 7:

* (a) All persons have the right to privacy and to intimacy.
* (b) There shall be no entry into the private premises of a person who has not consented thereto.
* (c) No search shall be conducted on the private premises of a person, nor in the body or personal effects.
* (d) There shall be no violation of the confidentiality of conversation, or of the writings or records of a person."

BARRIE, IN THESE LAWS NO DISTINCTION IS MADE BETWEEN JEWISH AND ARAB CITIZENS.

You may wish to argue that the law isn't honored. But whether it is enforced or not enforced is irrelevant: BUT YOU SAID APARTHEID WAS A LEGAL STRUCTURE.

Btw, the Israeli Supreme Court just ruled that a Palestinian student from Jenin should be admitted into an environmental studies program in israel despite the fears of terrorism. The student's name is Tareq Hardan. The Supreme Court ruled that Israeli law requires that there must be strict scrutiny of specific indices of possible terrorism in order to ban Palestinian students from Israeli universities.

Some apartheid as a legal structure, you donkey.

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

Certainly not a bon mot, if you are anything to go by, Yehudi.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/29/2006

What can one expect from a loony?

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

Barrie, you've become increasingly ridiculous. I said Muhammed al-Duri was a 12-year-old who got caught in a crossfire between the IDF and Palestinian terrorists. Nothing close to what you post above.

As I also said, why don't you actually DO SOME RESEARCH ON THIS CASE BEFORE SHOOTING OFF YOUR MOUTH? In fact, you should have done some RESEARCH on the case BEFORE you brought it into the conversation. Oh--I guess that's too much to ask. Research and facts are for kikes.

In any case, you have zero credibility with me after your morally and intellectually disgraceful performance about George Khoury, a situation which you then compounded with your grotesque claim that you didn't say anything that disrespected the victim. Unfortunately for you, Barrie, people can actually READ what you wrote.

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

N & Art. So does this mean both of you actually ARE saying that young Mohammed was a trained Palestinian agent provocateur "supported by an entire death-cult culture" to such a degree that he chose to spend 40 minutes or so committing suicide on camera to embarrass the Israeli authorities?

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

Happy to oblige, N.

Apartheid is a legally defined and enforceable system of segregation and discrimination designed to ensure the seperate development of different racial, ethnic or religious groups.

In the Israeli context, apartheid provides a legal framework for permanent social, economic, military and political dominance by Jews.

Hope this helps.

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

My understanding--and I sugggest that for once you research something before replying to me--is that the 12 year old boy got caught in a cross-fire between the IDF and Palestinian terrorists. There's been a LOT of work done on this case. As usual, YOUR version is nice one-sided propaganda but neither makes sense (trained Israeli snipers repeatedly shooting a 12-year old boy, out of sheer racism I suppose, and somehow not realizing they're on tv?), nor is it the only accepted account of what happened.

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

the visit of Sharon to the Temple Mount may have been ill-advized, but it was Arafat who ordered the intifada as a response. Palestinians have agency in history, they make decisions, they are not simply acted upon. Omar makes this point: the war is THEIR CHOICE. Unlike you, HE is honest enough to admit that OTHER populations which are both larger and have suffered worse traumas did NOT choose war as their CHOICE, but Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims DID, because they are NOBLER than other peoples.

OMAR at least sees what you cannot see, evidently because you hate the Israels (or is it "kikes"?) so much--THE WAR IS A WAR OF CHOICE BY THE PALESTINIANS AND NOT A 'NATURAL' REACTION TO EVENTS.

That is why other peoples have not reacted in the same way to similar or worse traumas inflicted upon them (and that includes the 30% more Jews who were expelled from Muslim lands than Arabs were from the Mandate territories).

THAT IS WHY IT IS NOT ISRAEL'S EXISTENCE BUT PALESTINIAN-ARAB GENOCIDAL REACTION WHICH NEEDS TO BE PROBLEMATIZED.

Not that you ever will. Just keep drinking tea with your friend and soul-mate Neville Chamberlain, and his good friend Hitler, and berating those dirty Jews for wishing to defend themselves. SO inconvenient, what?

N. Friedman -
12/29/2006

Art,

You forget that Omar says pretty much the same thing. All that Barrie has to do is ask Omar.

N. Friedman -
12/29/2006

Barrie,

Since you have this instinctive knowledge due to your spouse, explain apartheid to us dumbos.

And, explain it in a way that does not confuse it with discrimination. And, explain it in a way which does not also capture France and Britain.

If you cannot explain it, it is something limited to your heart.

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

Silly me. And I thought that Ariel Sharon's friendly little visit to the mosque compound of the Temple Mount with hundreds of uniformed and armed Israel riot police had triggered the second intifada. How wrong can I be? It's so good to have a friend like you to put me straight on matters of fact in this very complex and confusing world, Art.

You don't think that young Mohammed al-Durrah was really just a trained Palestinian agent provocateur, do you? That would explain a great deal because he certainly took a provocatively long time dying on television, even after he had been shot time and time again by heroic Israeli snipers.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/29/2006

You are the fullest of hate poster boy of the hatred of Jews. No fact, no context will change any of your sick believes. David Duke or David Irving at least have the courage to say it clearly that they hate Jews. You cover up your hate in humanistic garbage.
Kikely yours.

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

Oh sorry, I married into a South African family and my "ignorant prejudiced rants" probably reflect this fact.

We disagree: I believe that apartheid lies at the heart of the Israeli state, and you do not despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I'm not sure that attacking either Britain or France as apartheid countries really helps your case very much, although I agree that both countries have shortcomings, the most serious one being - and I speak as a Brit - HMG's support for the criminal war in Iraq. Maybe we should all join hands and form a circle, and then take it in turns to cry, "Mea culpa", and that might make us all feel a lot better. Perhaps you might ask Art to join us - but only if he promises to reflect a little more before he starts to shout the odds in future.

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

The number of innocent Israeli civilians intentonally killed in the Second Intifada is approximatedly 800. (By comparison, this would translate into 50,000 American civilian dead.) 75% of ALL Israeli casualties in the Second Intifada were non-combatants intentionally caught in bombings.

The Second Intifada was started by Palestinians, not by Israelis. Its purpose according to the vast majority of Palestinians polled in the 2002 poll reported on BBC (in my posting above) is to establish a Palestine from the River to the Sea--i.e., the destruction of Israel. You may not wish to believe it, any more than you wish to believe the genocidal propaganda of Hamas, but that is what the Palestinians SAY.

The Palestinians' choice of weapons is RACIST--or do you deny it? And in a world of synergistic interactions, that racist program sends its own message, and has consequences. That racist program has not been productive for the Palestinians up to now, and if you actually cared about the Palestinians, instead of slamming Jews, you would advise them to change their tactics.

I see you do not try to answer my other points. Hardly surprising.

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

"If you are concerned about this, why are you not concerned about the THOUSANDS of Jewish civilians--men, women, and children--intentionally targetted for death by Palestinians terrorists, who are supported by an entire death-cult culture?"

Art, sit back for a moment and study your words carefully. Don't you think it's all a little bit over the top? Hinting, perhaps, to someone who doesn't know you as well as I, at a serious weakness in the hinge department, as my Gran chose for some reason never to say.

I think the problem of any rich and well armed country fighting a popular aggressive war of choice against a poorer and weaker but highly motivated enemy, what is often termed asymetrical warfare nowadays, is that the weaker will find weapons of need and the most accessible targets against which to use them. In a sense, the Palestinian resistance uses precisely the same logic and morality as the Israelis who attack Gaza, and merely employs a different means to achieve a similar outcome. I don't want to give you the impression that I am unnecessarily picky on matters of etiquette, but it does seem to me to be slightly inappropriate for you to whinge on and on about the unfairness of your enemy's tactics in a war you chose to initiate and which you choose to continue to fight, and which you, personally, Art, also continue to support.

N. Friedman -
12/29/2006

Barrie,

Thus far, you have not suggested you have any idea what an apartheid state is. So, I shall take your comment as another of your ignorant, prejudiced rants.

Again, in Israel - and the opposite of what exists, by definition, in an apartheid state - the supposed apart and hated group votes, has representatives in the government, has judges including a high court judge and people in the diplomatic corp. Say what you want, but the term "apartheid" has nothing to do with Israel.

I note that according to your definition, Britain, which has its multicultural policy that celebrates diversity but leave everything in the hands of indigenous Brits, is apartheid. And France, where Muslims do not even have representation to speak of, while denying the existence of anybody other than French people, is another apartheid state, denying rights to Muslims.

In short, the term "apartheid" is another libel against Israel. Again, say what you will but the fact contradict your position. And, given the reality of a prejudiced Europe including your Britain, it is a way of deflecting attention from your own country's shortcomings.

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

By the way, Omar, YOU are the person who triumphantly brought UN Resolution 194 into this conversation as legal evidence for the Palestinian right of return; now, when you have been shown what UN R 194 actually SAYS, its specific qualifications on return, you now claim that its provisions are IMMATERIAL TO YOU.

Hypocrite.

In any case, never mention UN Resolution 194 ever again, not in any convesation. You don't believe in its provisions about peace, and you claim no Palestinian does either.

(Barrie Lambert take note--not that you will--Omar is undercutting you and Neville Chamberlain everywhere.)

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

There you go, Barrie Lambert--there's your peace-seeking Palestinian for you.

Omar, appropriating left-wing terminology such as racist gives you leverage with some people perhaps, but of course it's a lie. If Jews were racists, then George Khoury would not have been attending Hebrew University. If Palestinians weren't racists, George Khoury wouldn't have been killed because he LOOKED JEWISH.

I'll tell what is RACIST: RACIST is going into a pizza parlor and intentionally blowing up any old Jews you happen to find in there, JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE JEWS. That's the tactic on your side.

Hypocrite.

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

And as for "apartheid"--the Arab Israeli George Khoury was attending Hebrew University, and was jogging in an upscale predominantly Jewish neighborhood, as he regularly did, when he was gunned down as a Jew by racist Palestinian terrorists. Is that your apartheid state?

Two years earlier, Palestinian terrorists targetted the student cafeteria at Hebrew University, killing many students. It was one of the places in Israel where people from both sides talked seriously, because Hebrew University has many Arab students. The effect was to discourage Arab Israelis from attending Hebrew University.
Seven students were killed and 80.
students wounded, including 14 seriously.

The bomb-attack targetted intentionally on students eating in a cafeteria was claimed by HAMAS. Remember them, Barrie--and what they say about genocide? HAMAS is now the Palestinian government.

The attack was followed not by expressions of horror from Palestinians at such a crime against students but by massive CELEBRATIONS in Gaza--people dancing in the streets.
Who, again, is it who is against peace, Barrie? (AND IN ANY CASE, DO YOU THINK THOSE DISGRACEFUL SCENES OF CELEBRATION WOULD HAVE NO EFFECT ON ISRAELI PUBLIC OPINION AND PERCEPTIONS?)

Can Jews by land in the P.A. No. Who is it who is apartheidist again, Barrie?

What a fantasyland you're living in, Barrie. My favorites corkers from you recently are:

Any Palestinians who come to Israel under the right of return will be peaceful (WHERE'S THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE FOR THAT?)

and:

I said nothing to disrespect the victim George Khoury

(No, all you just suggested was that he was intentionally targetted because he was a collaborator with the Jews, or was "aping his peers" and thus insulting Palestinians--when the fact is, acknowledged by FATAH itself, that his murder was a mistake; they were seeking to murder any old Jew they could find, and mistakenly killed an Arab).

You are just amazing.

Kikely yours,

Art

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

If you are concerned about this, why are you not concerned about the THOUSANDS of Jewish civilians--men, women, and children--intentionally targetted for death by Palestinians terrorists, who are supported by an entire death-cult culture?

Hypocrite.

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

So it is US policy to assist an apartheid state to expand at the expense of its neighbours in the Middle East and that's what the big bucks go to support? And you defend Israel because that's the best way for you to support US policy, N? An interesting way to think.

Oh, and Art, you may think that "It's certainly the case that Israelis who commit the sort of crimes that Palestinian terrorists routinely commit are put on trial and convicted (one thinks of those who targetted West Bank mayors)"; but I think of the crimes routinely committed in Facility 1391 by the sort of Israelis who know they are never ever likely to be put on trial, let alone convicted, as long as your preferred version of the Jewish Apartheid State exists.

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

I guess I got that wrong: I truly apologize for that. It's certainly the case that Israelis who commit the sort of crimes that Palestinian terrorists routinely commit are put on trial and convicted (one thinks of those who targetted West Bank mayors).

As for Goldstein: A poll of 500 Israeli adults for the International Centre for Peace in the Middle East found that 78.8 percent of people condemned the Hebron massacre while 3.6 percent praised Goldstein.

These are the REVERSE of the Palestinian statistics in FAVOR of racist suicide attacks on Jews.

The June 2002 poll by the Jerusalem Media and Communications Centre showed that a large majority - nearly seven out of 10 people - supported the suicide operations, about 60% of those expressing their "strong" support. .

Yehudi Amitz -
12/29/2006

There are a lot of Jewish terrorists in Israeli jails, very normal for a law abiding country as Israel.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/29/2006

The only right of return to Israel is for Jews and NO wet dreams for the FINAL SOLUTION of the Jewish question will be part of any deal. The only facts we have are from the reality in the Muslim world where genocidal large scale killing is the norm, in any situation where a Muslim group has the opportunity to kill they do it on the largest scale possible. The best example is Lebanon where the tit for tat civil war lingered for about 20 years and where every group of Arabs killed other group of Arabs (if you are a Christian in the ME you can't turn the other cheek). But of course the world blames the Jews for killings committed by an Arab militia in return for killings committed by Palestinian militia. Did anyone call Robert McNamara or Lyndon Jonson war criminals for the well known killing, caught on a famous AP photo, where a high ranking south Vietnamese officer kills a Vietcong prisoner with his hands tied behind? But of course Ariel Sharon and some Israeli officers, with ease and insolence are called war criminals, because for the Jews everything goes.
A simple google.com search returns on
"mandela on israel" returns 13 of about 134 hits but "mandela on darfur" returns 0 (zero) hits. Also the search "tutu pn israel" returns 20 of about 358 hits but "tutu on darfur" returns 8 of about 20 (very recent) hits. The "great" Mandela doesn't really care about the predicament of Africans and the clown Tutu gives only some lip service about the subject, but both are very interested in blaming the Jews for no reason.
The world needs scapegoats and this situation isn't going to change soon, so "I killed jesus and I enjoyed it".
The real question is: where is NHS when you need it especially the loony facilities?

N. Friedman -
12/29/2006

Barrie,

I think the US gives money to Israel to advance US policy. I think it is up to Israel to decide what it wants to do.

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

Who in the world said that? You know, Barrie, you've got to stop fantasizing!! You're just making things up!

The ONLY group that has announced it wants the peace of the graveyard is HAMAS. Whom you defend. It's a grotesque position for you to take, Barrie.

But here's the deal I'll make with you, Barrie:

When Baruch Goldstein murdered those 29 Muslims in Hebron in 1994, not only was he eventually convicted of murder by an Israeli court (he's in prison as we speak), but huge anti-Goldman demonstrations occurred all over Israel: upwards of 600,000 Israelis participated, an enormous number. NOW--the very first time (and it WOULD be the first time!), after a savage Palestinian attack on Israeli civilians (men, women, children, any Jew will do for death), that there are huge Palestinian demos calling for peace and condemning such acts--RATHER THAN CELEBRATING THEM--I will begin to believe that your assessment of the situaton accords with reality, and that, in view of such demonstrations, the Palestinians have the same morality and wish for peace as the Israelis.

I'm waiting. You KNOW I'll be waiting a very very very very long time, Lambert.

But UNTIL that happens, it is clear who is the genocidal death-culture and who is not, even if that makes you uncomfortable. Neville, stop drinking your tea with Hitler and accept these hard facts.

Kikely yours,

Art

art eckstein -
12/29/2006

That response is totally incoherent, Barrie. A Jewish state which allowed the right of return to the Palestinians would lead to a state where Jews were in the minority, yet you simultaneousli say that would "guarantee the survival of the Israeli state." Why on earth would that be?

You cannot escape the fact that you simultaneously DENY that Israel would be committing suicide while admitting that allowing the Palestinians a right of return would mean "the end of the Jewish state." That's what you wrote.

You're clearly not a man for logic.

NOR do you even try to respond to the specific points of

a. Your ridiculuous--indeed appalling--statement that you did not disrespect George Khoury, the mistaken (Arab) victim of a Palestinian racist attack meant to kill Jews, when EVERY "alternative" you presented about this young man depicted him as despicable, and consciously targetted by Palestinians BECAUSE he was despicable (!!), Can't you READ what you yourself WROTE?

And why did you write that disgraceful posting, literally blaming the victim? (Even Fatah apologized for the attack!) Only to absolve the Palestinians of their racist intent (to kill any Jew they happened across)! And why did you wish to do THAT, eh?

b. This is linked to your absurd statement that the Palestinians--you're sure--will be happy to live peaceably with the Israelis, which is why they are covered by UNR 194: you offer ZERO evidence. Just you and Neville Chamberlain at tea.

c. Your absurd statement, to avoid the obvious parallels with the German refugees of 1945 (2 million) or the Hindu refugees of 1947 (at least 7 million) or the Jewish refugees of 1948-56 (200,000 more than the Palestinians)--all of whom have accepted their bad situation--your absurd statement that something will be done for the Germans (NO--not the slightest evidence, you're just bs-ing), and that time has stabilized the Hindu situation (yes, so that makes Muslim "colonization" of Hindu property okay--i mean the scare quotes around that term-- just like you accept the situation in Northern Ireland: it's just JEWISH behavior and ONLY Jewish behavior, that arouses your anger. One must ask why).

I'll add that you smugly quoted the Israeli law of return to show that Israel was specially apartheidist or racist--but have NO response when shown that the Israeli law is paralleled by TWENTY other nations, including China, Ireland, and Norway.

d. On Palestinians racism, you have never responded to my point that if I go downtown to a black bar in Washington and just open up with a machinegun on anyone who's black--that's a RACIST ACT. Yet that's the preferred Palestinian TACTIC. Combining this tactic with the Hamas statements on killing Jews, just how do you get a peaceful Palestinian population, Neville?

Barrie, you've shown yourself to be a fundamentally ignorant and illogical person--but also, far worse, someone who wants to KEEP his smug ignorance, and dismisses facts as "details" or "gossip.". Sorry to say it, but it's true.

If you respond, please answer my specific points.

Kikely yours,

Art

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

Art, a typically unreflective response from you, most of which betrays a deliberate attampt not to address sensibly the points I have raised. One of your hysterically irresponsible statements does require a response, though:

"Barrie here denies that Israel would be committing suicide by allowing the Palestinians back in, then says that allowing the Palestinians back in would mean "the end of the Jewish state."

"Duhhh...Choose one or the other position, Barrie--you simply cannot have both."

Well, the point is, you can have a State for Jews (as opposed to a Jewish State) AND a Palestinian right of return and that is probably the only way to guarantee the survival, in the long term, of what is now the Israeli state. But I get the sense that you are not a man for fine detail and nuance.

Barrie Lambert -
12/29/2006

N, I'm assuming that you are an American citizen. If so, how do you square it with the statement, "I am at a loss to see how it is the business of anyone other than those involved and, if those involved do not want what you want them to want, then it ought be irrelevant", when you are so obviously feel so involved? Are you simply watching out for your fellow Americans by safeguarding the flow of their tax dollars which go to support the state of Israel and its apartheid policies?

As for Art, your position is clearly that the Jewish State is obliged to impose peace on the Palestinians, and it would be better if it were the peace of the graveyard than not. Apartheid? I think so.

N. Friedman -
12/29/2006

Arnold,

There are a number of different ways to look at Israel's activities in the captured territories. On the one hand, an Israeli can say with a good conscience that such land was promised to Israel and, in addition, Israel won the land fair and square. On the other hand, if Israel ends up with too much land on the captured territories, it will be difficult to create a state for Palestinian Arabs. But, on the third hand, there does not appear to be much evidence that Palestinian Arabs want a state limited to the captured territories so it is rather strange that an outsider would get worked up one way or the other.

I fit the last noted category. I cannot imagine why an outside should care, most especially since not even Palestinian Arabs seem to want a state limited to the captured territory - and not Omar's view and his statement that his view is the norm among Palestinian Arabs -.

And, as further evidence of how an outsider should consider the matter, no one seems to care whether Kashmir remains part of India other than those involved. No one seems to care, other than people in Sudan, whether Southern Sudan remains in Sudan. The same for Tibet remaining in or out of China. I am at a loss to see how it is the business of anyone other than those involved and, if those involved do not want what you want them to want, then it ought be irrelevant.

art eckstein -
12/28/2006

While it is probably useless to respond to this person, I shall make a few points:

1. He says: 1. Re: The RIGHT of RETURN
by art eckstein on December 27, 2006 at 12:58 AM
"No state is required to commit suicide. That's "principle one.""

It is also a stupid claim; how can the state commit "suicide" by allowing the Palestinian right to return. The state will adapt and continue in a different way than before as its population changes, perhaps, and will not die. I imagine, sooner or later, it may cease constitutionally to be a Jewish state but it can retain and extend its role as a refuge for all those with a claim to origins in the Holy Land. The end of the Jewish state certainly need not be the end of the Jewish National Home.

Barrie here denies that Israel would be committing suicide by allowing the Palestinians back in, then says that allowing the Palestinians back in would mean "the end of the Jewish state."

Duhhh...Choose one or the other position, Barrie--you simply cannot have both.

2. "2. As for Resolution 194, sec. 11 (of spring 1948), it urges the return of refugees to their homes BUT with the important qualification that N.F. notes: refugees "WILLING TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS " [that is the EXACT quote from the Resolution]"

I am sure it follows from the exercise of the Right of Return that Refugees and their posterity will be willing to live in peace with their neighbours.

Barrie, if you actually believe what you have written here, I've got a Brooklyn Bridge to sell you. Perhaps you can invite Neville Chamberlain in as a partner ("Herr Hitler would not deliberately deceive me.")

Note that your position is NOT the position of the current Palestinian government--read what N.F. has shown from the HAMAS material urging the death of the Jews, and the HAMAS current position supporting the racist suicide-bombing of any Jews who happen to be around when the bomber goes off.

In any case, your position suggests that in order for the Palestinians to exercise the right of return under UN Resolution 194, the Palestinians would have to demonstrate abundant peaceableness first.

I'm waiting.

3. Barrie writes: Suicide bombing is the weapon of the poor and hopeless against the rich an powerful, and if an equitable settlement becomes possible, because Israel wishes it to be so, my guess is that relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians will improve at every level of life.

Barrie, suicide-bombing is a RACIST act: ANY JEW, young, old, male, female, child, will do to be killed, and that is what has occurred. As the Khoury case showed, even someone who just LOOKED like an Israeli out jogging could be slated for death, even if he turned out to be an Arab. Fateh apologized NOT for killing someone out jogging in an upscale neighborhood, but because he happened not to be a Jew, but an Arab. Those stated genocidal principles, and those racist actions, have CONSEQUENCES among the Israeli population--they bring trust in Palestinian peaceableness down to zero, and that is the Palestinians' CHOICE. "No state is required to commit suicide--that's principle one of international relations."

As for your vague equitable settlement delivered by the Israelis alone--your posting in no. 1 above shows that what you mean by "equitable" is the destruction of Israel.

.
4. On the Khoury case, you weren't merely "skeptical": EVERY alternative you suggested was an attack on the morality of the Arab young man who was killed by Fatah. You say now that you WEREN'T SHOWING DISRESPECT TO THE CRIME'S VICTIM. Unbelievable. Barrie, don't you remember what you wrote? You proposed that was (a) he a collaborator and intentionally targetted for that reason. You proposed (b) that was he trying to ape his "betters" and so was intentionally targetted for that reason. THINK of the image you concocted of this young man in your malice, and continue to say you meant no disrepect!!

BUT AS WE KNOW--KHOURY HAPPENED TO LOOK LIKE A JEW, AND SO WAS VICTIMIZED IN A RACIST ATTACK. YOU CANNOT ESCAPE THIS, OR ITS IMPLICATIONS ABOUT FATAH..

You didn't trust my version, which was the correct version (WASN'T IT, YOU ASS?). But you did propose various malicious and malevolent alternatives, ALL OF THEM demeaning of the victim, whom you were willing to sacrifice in the service of making the Palestinians look less bad--in the service of the ignorant, stupid or malicious denial of terrible reality that pervades all your posts. You ought to be ashamed. Even Fatah was ashamed--though for a grotesquely wrong reason, as I said above.

(a) I am sure, perhaps through the European Union, that the German/Polish position will be regularised at some point in the future.

More Chamberlainesque cloud-gazing. THERE IS ABSOLUTE ZERO EVIDENCE OF ANY RESOLUTION OF THIS ISSUE. The area, settled by Germans for 800 years, now belongs to Polish "colonial settlers." There is no movement on this issue in the EU. There never will be. You're just making things up now. Disgraceful lack of thought.

b. "The Pakistani/Indian position has been solidified by the nature of partition and by time, and I have no useful thoughts on this question."

Stabilized by the passage of time did you say? The Pakistan/Indian position HAS EXISTED FOR EXACTLY AS LONG AS THE ISRAEL/PALESTINIAN ONE, and was the result of the same decolonialization chaos! Yet the one you are willing to see as stabilized, the other as in play for the destruction of one of the states that has emerged. You think all those Pakistanis living in the houses and working the farms of the departed Indian refugees are any less "colonialist" than the Poles or the Israelis? And don't try to argue that plenty of Muslims lost everything on the Indian side of the line--BECAUSE 200,000 MORE JEWS WERE EXPELLED FROM ARAB LANDS AFTER 1948 THAN WERE PALESTINIANS DURING THE WAR. THAT'S 30% MORE JEWS LOST EVERYTHING THAN PALESTINIANS DID. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander--except if they're JEWS, for Barrie.

I'll tell you something, Barrie--you're right that you have no useful thoughts on India/Pakistan, and you have no useful thoughts on the Israel/Palestine issue either, just a lot of biases and ill will and ignorance and grotesque illogic and a refusal to face information that makes you uncomfortable.

Barrie Lambert -
12/28/2006

I shall respond to the less idiotic of your arguments in sequence, many of which I find partial, trivial and self-derving:

1. Re: The RIGHT of RETURN
by art eckstein on December 27, 2006 at 12:58 AM
"No state is required to commit suicide. That's "principle one.""

It is also a stupid claim; how can the state commit "suicide" by allowing the Palestinian right to return. The state will adapt and continue in a different way than before as its population changes, perhaps, and will not die. I imagine, sooner or later, it may cease constitutionally to be a Jewish state but it can retain and extend its role as a refuge for all those with a claim to origins in the Holy Land. The end of the Jewish state certainly need not be the end of the Jewish National Home.

"The historic norm is for those displaced in the creation of a country not to be allowed to be re-admitted. Such is the case in India, Pakistan, the former Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.. Why should anyone make a special case for Palestinian Arabs? They certainly are not any more deserving, most especially given their decision to start murdering non-combatants."

Not the most balanced approach and what N refers to as "the historic norm" has no place in international law. No-one is making a special case for the Palestinians, they should be treated as international law demands. It is the State of Israel which has been treated as exceptional to the present day, and as a special case.

"2. As for Resolution 194, sec. 11 (of spring 1948), it urges the return of refugees to their homes BUT with the important qualification that N.F. notes: refugees "WILLING TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS " [that is the EXACT quote from the Resolution]"

I am sure it follows from the exercise of the Right of Return that Refugees and their posterity will be willing to live in peace with their neighbours. It may be that some use the Right to Return to reclaim property and sell it, either remaining in Israel or using the cash to finance their lives in another country.

"Omar and his types want to destroy Israel, and they are explicit about this goal it. They are motivated by hatred, and they ARE explicit about that motivation.. They also support the strategy not merely of general war against Israel but the SPECIFIC tactic of suicide bombing of civilians, with its message of genocide (that is: any Jew will do for death--or, in the case of George Khoury which we have discussed, anyone who even LOOKS like a Jew will do for death."

This, to me, says more about you and people like you than it does about your "enemies". Suicide bombing is the weapon of the poor and hopeless against the rich an powerful, and if an equitable settlement becomes possible, because Israel wishes it to be so, my guess is that relations between the Israelis and the Palestinians will improve at every level of life.

[BARRIE, YOUR DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOR IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE KHOURY CASE--YOUR DISGRACEFUL ANTI-ISRAEL SPECULATIONS ON THE BASIS OF NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, JUST GROSS BIAS--IS WHAT HAS SOURED ME ON YOU; AND YOU NEVER EVEN HAD THE GRACE TO APOLOGIZE FOR IT, AND THAT TOO CONVINCED ME THAT YOU ARE NOT ARGUING IN GOOD FAITH; ANY NORMAL PERSON WHO HAD MADE THE MISTAKES YOU DID WOULD HAVE APOLOGIZED, AND PROFUSELY, AND EXAMINED HIS MIND FOR WHERE THESE IDEAS ABOUT THE KHOURY CASE CAME FROM].

Not disgraceful, merely doing what any sceptic would and should do in response to a brief, and not entirely coherent, description of an allegedly racial motivated crime whose victim happened to belong to the "wrong" racial group by creating alternative hypotheses which may well fit the facts better. We are all creatures of Agatha Christie at heart, and I was certainly advancing hypotheses in good faith without showing disrespect to the crime's victim.

"BARRIE, 2 MILLION REFUGEE GERMANS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO RETURN TO EAST PRUSSIA, NOW POLAND, WHERE THEIR ANCESTORS LIVED FOR 800 YEARS; HINDUS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO RETURN TO PAKISTAN; AND THOSE TWO POPULATIONS AREN'T EVEN AT WAR WITH POLAND OR PAKISTAN! ISRAEL IS THEREFORE NOT ALONE IN MAKING THIS PERFECTLY REASONABLE RESTRICTION! GET IT?]"

"[BARRIE LAMBERT, PLEASE NOTE ALSO ABOVE THE LIST OF 20 OR SO NATIONS, INCLUDING CHINA AND IRELAND AND NORWAY, THAT HAVE A SPECIAL LAW OF 'RIGHT OF RETURN' FOR OVERSEAS POPULATIONS NO MATTER HOW LONG GONE AWAY; ISRAEL IS NOT ALONE IN THAT LAW, EITHER, NOT UNUSUAL AT ALL, BUT YOU HAVE TRIED TO USE IT AS EVIDENCE OF SOME SORT OF SPECIAL ISRAELI 'RACISM.' MORE IGNORANCE ON YOUR PART.]"

I am sure, perhaps through the European Union, that the German/Polish position will be regularised at some point in the future, as will the Berman/Russian position. The Pakistani/Indian position has been solidified by the nature of partition and by time, and I have no useful thoughts in this question.

I note your points on rights of return which arise on grounds of patriality. Israel is not in that position. It has a settler population imposed on the indigenous people of Palestine. The right of Jews to "return" is a right confered through the accident of race, religion and ethnicity, regardless of any direct connection a "returning" Jew may have, or not, to Israel. To the best of my knowledge, the other countries you mention have right of return policies based on patriality, that is, a narrow and provable connection with the country through blood relatives, usually, parents, grandparents, great grandparents. etc. Israel's policy is clearly racist, and other countries "right of return" policies are not, even though in the short term, they may have that effect because of the way the patriality principle operates in practice.

Arnold Shcherban -
12/28/2006

How about the last Israeli announcement about building the new
settlement on Palestinian land in such an extremely tensed
situation as it is now?
If many people of the world looked at it as provocational is it because all they want is oil?
You generalize to a point of absurdity...

A. M. Eckstein -
12/28/2006

THAT'S: UN RESOLUTION 194.

E. Simon -
12/28/2006

All of which he will ignore and call you a "racist" or accessory to racism and ignorance for saying, of course.

art eckstein -
12/28/2006

Of course, it is also typical of your bottomless hypocrisy that while you have heaped abuse on me, the slightest response from me brings outrage.

Hypocrite.

art eckstein -
12/28/2006

That is, you have no response to my facts.

art eckstein -
12/28/2006

In other words, while Omar cites UN Resolution 149 to justify the Palestinians' "right of return", it is now absolutely clear that at the same time he rejects the central provision (and qualification of rights) of 149 that returned refugees must be willing to live in peace with their neighbors. This provision is why all the Arab states voted against 149 as well, back in 1948. But it is the central provision of 149!

So Omar, NEVER mention UNR 149 again! We'll catch you out in your deception here, I promise you.

N. Friedman -
12/28/2006

CORRECTION:

The word "law" should read "last" in the above post.

N. Friedman -
12/28/2006

Barrie,

Oh and by the way, this talk about what the world thinks is nonsense. The world only cares that it gets oil. And but for oil, Palestinian Arabs would have less attention than Sudanese Christians and animists did over the previous 20 years and Kashmiri separatists over the law 55 years, i.e. none. In other words, it is you who cares about Palestinian Arabs as some sort of validator for your own ideas.

N. Friedman -
12/28/2006

Barrie,

All is not well in Israel. It is a country at war. Consider: turning Israel into another Lebanon is not going to make Israel well. Such an event will make things much worse.

N. Friedman -
12/28/2006

Omar,

In other words, you are not willing to live with your neighbors in peace. That is the exact implication of your words.

As to the inalienable issue, you have stated that on a number of posts over the course of several years. And the argument you cited holds to that view, whether or not you realize it.

Incidentally, what does the de-Zionization consist of? What would happen to the 5 million Zionists who do not want to be de-Zionized? Is not your statement proof positive of your unwillingness to live in peace with neighbors who are Zionist? Or, do you think they will be thrilled to give up their dreams just to have you as a neighbor?

art eckstein -
12/28/2006

1. Omar now writes that he is not for the destruction of Israel but rather is an advocate of "dezionization", which--however--he defines as the following:

"Dezionization being, as I have often defined it: the ridding of Israel of the dogma, Zionism, whose goal, policies and practices aim at achieving "An exclusively, or predominantly, Jewish nation/state in Palestine."

What else can this verbiage mean but the destruction of Israel as a nation-state, precisely as I stated as your explicit aim? Or are you actually arguing that the Palestinians who would come flooding into Israel under your scheme would keep the name of the place "Israel"? Surely you don't believe THAT. Therefore, you are--as I said--advocating the destruction of israel. QED.

2. Omar writes that the Hamas quotes do not add substance to my postings because they do not deal with "dezionization." No, they don't you idiot--because the Hamas quotes, and the official Hamas policy AS a government in supporting suicide-bombing which kills ANY Jew at all, those quotes and those policies advocate GENOCIDE, murdering all the Jews. Never mind "dezionization"--that's the LEAST of it. So how can these quotes and these policies NOT be relevant material not merely regarding the destruction of the state of Israel, but the destruction of its present Jewish population?

I've given you plenty of substance, Omar-- you just can't bear to look at what your own side is saying, or its implications. You can't bear to do it, because that would then lay a VERY heavy responsibility for the current tragic situation on the Palestinians, Arabs and Muslims themselves.

N. Friedman -
12/28/2006

Omar,

Have I misread your views? If so, I apologize.

I understood your position to be - based on the third party argument you cited - that Palestinian Arabs have a right of return that cannot be alienated. That means, in simple English, means that the behavior of Palestinian Arabs, on your argument, is irrelevant, as they cannot waive (i.e. alienate) their rights.

OK?

I gather you now do not hold the view that the right of return is inalienable and instead take the view that Palestinian Arabs are willing to live in peace with Israelis qua Israelis in Israel. While that, to me, is contradicted by your view that Israel has no right to exist and must be eliminated, I am the first to note that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Or, as Nietzsche would put it for himself, he is beyond contradiction.

In that your view, at least to me, seems rather contradictory, maybe you might explain yourself in simple English - none of the racist, etc., rant - so that I can understand you.

art eckstein -
12/28/2006

NOTE: Omar finds the following list of specific facts, listed by me, to mean: "Eckstein is at a loss to find something of substance to say."

This man Omar needs a psychiatrist--or perhaps someone to teach him how to read.

by art eckstein on December 28, 2006 at 9:17 AM
Yep--espeically when all the Jews are dead, as Hamas advocates: see the posts of Hamas material posted above by Friedman. That ideological stance is backed by Hamas--as a GOVERNMENT--specifically approving of suicide bombing that kills any Jews of any sort (that happened in March). This material has been pointed out to you repeatedly; you just ignore it.

Omar, the genocidal ideological principles of Hamas as quoted by Friedman, and the POLICY of Hamas as a GOVERNMENT, constitute specific evidence that you MUST answer.

You cannot explain this evidence away, so you just ignore it and then lyingly state I haven't posted something of substance. It's very substantial all right--you just don't like the implications.

N. Friedman -
12/28/2006

Omar,

How should I know. But, I hope it is not French. And, if you are actually a Palestinian Arab, yours and my blood is likely more similar than to anyone other group.

N. Friedman -
12/28/2006

Omar,

Note, Omar, it is you who stated that the views of the refugees do not matter. I showed that it does.

As for your argument that the refugees would live with their neighbors in peace, the HAMAS says otherwise. They were rather explicit when they spoke to The New York Times.

art eckstein -
12/28/2006

Barrie Lambert, you obviously have not read the following posts, which were posted above and have much useful information; they should explain everything even to your simple and biased mind, so resistant to facts (oh--"details"; "gossip"; that's a really disgraceful attitude, Barrie):

1. Re: The RIGHT of RETURN
by art eckstein on December 27, 2006 at 12:58 AM
No state is required to commit suicide. That's "principle one."

What occurred in 1948-1949 was tragic, but more Jews were expelled from Muslim lands in1948-1958 than Palestinians were "expelled" from the country that became israel.

Israel would be a lot smaller if the Arabs hadn't attacked it, in violation of numerous U.N. provisions. What hypocrisy to depend on the U.N. now--but then Muslim hypocrisy is bottomless.

Omar--if I go into a bar in downtown Washington D.C., under the illusion that I have suffered an injustice from "blacks", and I open up my submachine gun on any blacks in that bar--young, old, ANY black will do--am I not guilty of racism of the worse sort? That's the Palestinian TACTIC.

Can Jews buy land in the P.A.? Who's the Aparteheidist, then?

Omar, You have announced your purpose is the destruction of Israel. Everything you write is for that purpose.

Israel has a right of return for its own people. If the Palestinians had had any sense, they would already have their own country, to which any Palestinian could return--namely, the West Bank and Gaza. But they backed the Germans in WWI, the Nazis in WWII, the Communists in the Cold War, Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003, and they rejected Taba--for which President Clinton directly blamed Arafat, while Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia (hardly a zionist, coming from a country where Jews cannot enter AT ALL) called Arafat a liar with whom it was impossible to deal.

Go on--blame everyone but yourselves. Show us just what a child you are. Oh--you've already done that.

[I exclude Omar's vague bs response, including his grotesquely offensive equation of "dezionization" with 'denazification"; read it for yourself. We're only interested right now in INFORMATION]

2. .
Re: The RIGHT of RETURN (#103776)
by N. Friedman on December 27, 2006 at 1:58 AM
Omar,

The historic norm is for those displaced in the creation of a country not to be allowed to be re-admitted. Such is the case in India, Pakistan, the former Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.. Why should anyone make a special case for Palestinian Arabs? They certainly are not any more deserving, most especially given their decision to start murdering non-combatants.

Palestinian Arabs certainly did not have it as bad as either the Sudetens or the Indians. And unlike either of those groups, the Palestinian Arabs were combatants attempting to massacre the entire Jewish population. Why should the Israelis allow murderous people in, especially when they and their children deny their own actions?

And, notwithstanding your quotation from some legal source, the law does not require the rescue of belligerent people. UN 194 makes that point explicitly. And, to note - and consider this carefully, Omar, since it shows your point to be dishonest nonsense: the Arab states all voted against UN 194. Do you happen to know why, Omar? Evidently not. Here is the reason, as they stated openly at the time: UN 194 did not require Israel to take anyone in.

The Council of Europe also decided to side against that right of Palestinian Arabs. It would have created, for the first time in history, a precedent requiring what you claim to be the law and, as a result, Europe would have had to allow Sudetens to return to their homes. And, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, the Sudetens were not combatants. They were merely expelled. So, you see, your legal position is not quite what you think. In fact, your argument is nonsense.

The problem with you Omar is that you cite legal arguments that are irrelevant. There are as many as 50 million refugees in the world. Almost none will return to their place of origin. However, those with even the smallest bit of common sense try to find settlement somewhere.

3. The RIGHT of RETURN (#103778)
by omar ibrahim baker on December 27, 2006 at 7:33 AM

More bs from the supposedly saner, or rather less deleriously racist, of the herd.
For a lawyer to contend that law is applicable only if the belligerents approve of it says a lot about how blind can people be, or become, when that law affects them or affect their interests or uncovers their biases and racism.

4.
Re: The RIGHT of RETURN (#103781)
by art eckstein on December 27, 2006 at 8:31 AM

Please note, folks: Omar, above, has NO answer to ANY of the specific points made by N.F.

1. He cannot answer, and does not even TRY to answer the following:

"The historic norm is for those displaced in the creation of a country not to be allowed to be re-admitted. Such is the case in India, Pakistan, the former Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.. Why should anyone make a special case for Palestinian Arabs?"

2. As for Resolution 194, sec. 11 (of spring 1948), it urges the return of refugees to their homes BUT with the important qualification that N.F. notes: refugees "WILLING TO LIVE IN PEACE WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS " [that is the EXACT quote from the Resolution]

Omar and his types want to destroy Israel, and they are explicit about this goal it. They are motivated by hatred, and they ARE explicit about that motivation.. They also support the strategy not merely of general war against Israel but the SPECIFIC tactic of suicide bombing of civilians, with its message of genocide (that is: any Jew will do for death--or, in the case of George Khoury which we have discussed, anyone who even LOOKS like a Jew will do for death.

[BARRIE, YOUR DISGRACEFUL BEHAVIOR IN THE DISCUSSION OF THE KHOURY CASE--YOUR DISGRACEFUL ANTI-ISRAEL SPECULATIONS ON THE BASIS OF NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, JUST GROSS BIAS--IS WHAT HAS SOURED ME ON YOU; AND YOU NEVER EVEN HAD THE GRACE TO APOLOGIZE FOR IT, AND THAT TOO CONVINCED ME THAT YOU ARE NOT ARGUING IN GOOD FAITH; ANY NORMAL PERSON WHO HAD MADE THE MISTAKES YOU DID WOULD HAVE APOLOGIZED, AND PROFUSELY, AND EXAMINED HIS MIND FOR WHERE THESE IDEAS ABOUT THE KHOURY CASE CAME FROM].

Omar, as long as you prescibe and
support such a position, you and your friends are NOT covered in UN Res. 194.

[GET IT, BARRIE? AS LONG AS THE PALESTINIANS ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE AND ANNOUNCE THEIR INTENTION TO ENGAGE IN VIOLENCE--INDEED, USING THE GENOCIDAL WEAPON OF SUICIDE BOMBING WHERE 'ANY JEW WILL DO FOR DEATH, OR EVEN ANYONE WHO HAPPENS TO LOOK LIKE A JEW'--THE PALESTINIANS ARE NOT COVERED BY UNR 194 AND 'THE RIGHT OF RETURN'.]

Indeed, it was precisely the qualification about "living in peace with their neighbors" that led every Arab state voted AGAINST UNR 194.

Thus, Omar, you can NEVER again employ that argument about 194--not EVER again--on HNN. Be warned: if you DO, we will catch and unmask you, just as N.F. has done now, and show you up for the fool and hypocrite that you are, EVERY time.

One principle of scholarship, Omar, is that you cannot quote SELECTIVELY from documents. Just a moment of teaching from me, which I give in all basic undergraduate classes.

[BARRIE, 2 MILLION REFUGEE GERMANS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO RETURN TO EAST PRUSSIA, NOW POLAND, WHERE THEIR ANCESTORS LIVED FOR 800 YEARS; HINDUS DO NOT HAVE THE AUTOMATIC RIGHT TO RETURN TO PAKISTAN; AND THOSE TWO POPULATIONS AREN'T EVEN AT WAR WITH POLAND OR PAKISTAN! ISRAEL IS THEREFORE NOT ALONE IN MAKING THIS PERFECTLY REASONABLE RESTRICTION! GET IT?]

[BARRIE LAMBERT, PLEASE NOTE ALSO ABOVE THE LIST OF 20 OR SO NATIONS, INCLUDING CHINA AND IRELAND AND NORWAY, THAT HAVE A SPECIAL LAW OF 'RIGHT OF RETURN' FOR OVERSEAS POPULATIONS NO MATTER HOW LONG GONE AWAY; ISRAEL IS NOT ALONE IN THAT LAW, EITHER, NOT UNUSUAL AT ALL, BUT YOU HAVE TRIED TO USE IT AS EVIDENCE OF SOME SORT OF SPECIAL ISRAELI 'RACISM.' MORE IGNORANCE ON YOUR PART.]

Kikely yours,

Art Eckstein

Yehudi Amitz -
12/28/2006

Till you drop dead back to basics for you is wearing a dunce cap.

With kikely love

art eckstein -
12/28/2006

Yep--espeically when all the Jews are dead, as Hamas advocates: see the posts of Hamas material posted above by Friedman. That ideological stance is backed by Hamas--as a GOVERNMENT--specifically approving of suicide bombing that kills any Jews of any sort (that happened in March). This material has been pointed out to you repeatedly; you just ignore it.

You're just a liar, Omar.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/28/2006

The only way you can be of any use is if you drop dead and used for dissection. They are not going to find a brain but judging by your fecal writing you will be a fine example of a total body lower digestive system.
Use your NHS for embalming and too bad you are driveling between your bad British teeth. You probably can't afford, so I can help you buy some tissue paper.
My health is very good and I can afford the best American doctors, money can buy.

With kikely love.

N. Friedman -
12/28/2006

Omar,

I addressed your one point, namely, that the position of the refugee is irrelevant. In fact, UN 194 states exactly the opposite.

The applicable words in the resolution read: "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date..." Note the language, "live at peace with their neighbors." That language means that people who are not "willing to live at peace with their neighbors" have no claim to move to Israel. That, based on your representations, means that nearly no Palestinian Arab has any claim to move to Israel.

Is that clear enough for you? In simple terms, you are mistaken when you assert that the position adopted by refugees is irrelevant. In fact, UN 194 makes it very relevant. Why? Because by refusing to accept Israel, you forfeit anything other than a monetary claim. And, it is not even clear that you could get a monetary claim as there is also the claim of the nearly million Jewish refugees from Arab lands.

I might also note - lest you think that UN 194 adopts an odd view -: there is also general jurisprudence about people demanding a court do something other than award money. The expression recognized by courts is "To obtain equity, you must do equity." Or, in simple terms, if you want a court to help you, you must not have dirtied your hands. Otherwise, you can get no non-monetary help from a court.

Barrie Lambert -
12/27/2006

So, if everything if so hunky-dory in Israel, why are the Jews in Palestine si resistant to a Palestinian Right of Return? I, and the rest of the civilised world, would like to know.

Barrie Lambert -
12/27/2006

So you would prefer me to die, idiot boy? So I won't be able any longer to argue against an ameoba with a Mcdonalds fluffy for a braincell?

As we say in God's own country, Yehudi, scratching our arses and picking the flakes as we drink our Horlicks: sweet dreams, dropula lad. Maybe you can offer yet another bung to Lord Levy who may well do you a cheap deal on a brain transplant in an NHS hospital from an equally hysterical gnat which may kick in the second cell you so obviously need. But, hopefully, the effects won't be too alarming. And you may get a seat in the House of Lords as Lord Dumbarse of Two Cells. Who knows? I don't.

N. Friedman -
12/27/2006

Omar,

The phrase "French blood" comes, as I recall, from the statute itself. It is not my interpretation. But, it does rule out people such as you or I, were we to live in France as citizens and then to reject it, ever claiming a right to live France. But, at the same time, any person from the US or Canada - even if here since the 1600's (e.g. people in Quebec) - to return to France and claim a right to live in France.

N. Friedman -
12/27/2006

Omar,

Jews of French origin are not considered to have French blood. Only "true" French people have it.

art eckstein -
12/27/2006

In other words, Omar can think of no response.

art eckstein -
12/27/2006

In addiition, you must now stop using the Israeli "Law of Return" as evidence of special Israeli "racism" let alone "Nazism" (you are DISGUSTING in your intellectual corruption, Omar), since TWENTY other countries today have similar laws, including China and Ireland and Norway.

You ass.

N. Friedman -
12/27/2006

Omar,

How do you respond to the point about why ALL Arab states voted against UN 194 with the common position being that such provision did not require the return of refugees? How do you respond to the fact that the actual text of UN 194 allows for payment of money, rather than re-admission of people who would not accepted the established country of Israel? And, how do you respond to the fact that there is no existing precedent for forcing a country to take in people displaced in the founding of the country, with Europe expressly rejecting such an obligation because that would, for the first time, create precedent requiring Poland and Czechoslovakia to take in the millions of people they expelled at the end of WWII?

Now, add to this, in response to your point, the fact that law is not merely statutes and resolutions. It is also precedent. And, thus far, the precedent is exactly the opposite of the position you assert. And, as examples, I cite Pakistan, India, Poland and Czechoslovakia and the decision of the Council of Europe.

And, let us also add a moral point. People are, as it were, entitled to seek a good life for themselves. That, at the very most, is all the world may owe Palestinian Arabs. The world does not, however, have a moral obligation to force Palestinian Arabs upon the Israelis. And, the Israelis do not have a moral obligation to accept in people who do not accept Israel - as that would lead to civil war, something that the world, as a whole, rejects.

And note: you have stated over and over again that you do not accept Israel. And, the HAMAS express position is opposed to the existence of Israel and, to note, Palestinian Arabs voted for that position by voting for the HAMAS. So, there is no moral obligation here, as Palestinian Arabs are, en masse, unwilling to do the very thing that might create either a moral or a legal obligation, as you state over and over again.

Your position, as I see it, is that Palestinian Arabs are plants and can only bloom in one place. That is so far removed from morality that it is a nonsense proposition.

Again: we are entitled to seek the good life. But, there is a good life not only in Israel but elsewhere. Given the unwillingness of Palestinian Arabs to accept Israel - you being a prime example -, there could not possible be a moral or legal obligation to take such people into Israel. And, again, UN 194 states explicitly that compensation could be extended to anyone displaced, during Israel's war of Independence, not willing to live at peace with their neighbors, which means in Israel. And that very reason is why ALL Arab states rejected UN 194. Such states and their people were not willing to live in peace with Israel. Capice?

art eckstein -
12/27/2006

Now, Omar: if I go into a restaurant in downtown D.C., under the delusion that black people have done something to me (or even if some individual black person has done something to me), and I open up with a machine-gun and kill anyone in there simply because they were black--men, women, children--is that not a racist act?

Look in the mirror as you prepare and encourage your suicide bombers.

And now, Omar--since UNR 194 requires that any returned refugees be peaceful, which is the last thing you advocate, will you either (a) admit that you are a hypocrite to use UNR 194 (which EVERY ARAB STATE VOTED AGAINST PRECISELY BECAUSE OF THE 'PEACEFUL' PROVISION), or that (b) you misread UNR 194 and now see it is useless for your case, or (c) renounce all violence against Israel and Jews in general?

I'm waiting for your answer.

art eckstein -
12/27/2006

"Dezionization" means (a) the political destruction of Israel (which you admit), and (b) the genocide of those Jews who stay, left at the mercy of Palestinians sworn to destroy them (as Hamas makes clear both in documents and by actions). This you don't admit--but you're just lying.

This isn't difficult, Omar.

Yes, and I did misspeak:

You are the intellectually corrupt product of a degenerate, lying, death-cult, hypocritical and above all self-pitying culture, which, for reasons of "honor" can only blame the Other for what it has brought upon itself.

art eckstein -
12/27/2006

Omar,

Friedman answered your points; I was out of the house; no need for me to respond when I got back. And that's right, Omar--Friedman responded because we Jews are all involved in a secret conspiracy.

You must understand that every time you make a statement like that you reveal yourself naked for what you are.

In your posting just above, however, I note that YOU don't respond to the points Friedman and I have made above about UNR 194--because you CANNOT.

You are the intellectually corrupt product of a death-cult degenerate culture, Omar.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/27/2006

194 is as good and useful as toilet paper but good for a bottom feeder, like you, who prefers public money instead of going to work.
The link I quoted before

shows also that, for Israel, UN made an exception and it's the only conflict in this world where the term refugees includes descendants.
Who is going to take seriously such a corrupt and racist concoction like UN? How come that with your 4 wives you still have wet dreams? Your dream about 72 Jewish virgins in heaven is Koran kosher?
With kikely love.

art eckstein -
12/27/2006

Please note, folks: Omar, above, has NO answer to the specific points made by N.F.

1. He cannot answer, and does not even TRY to answer the following:

"The historic norm is for those displaced in the creation of a country not to be allowed to be re-admitted. Such is the case in India, Pakistan, the former Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.. Why should anyone make a special case for Palestinian Arabs?"

2. As for Resolution 194, sec. 11 (of spring 1948), it urges the return of refugees to their homes BUT with the important qualification that N.F. notes: refugees "willing to live in peace with their neighbors." [that is the EXACT quote from the Resolution]

Omar and his types want to destroy Israel, and they are explicit about this goal it. They are motivated by hatred, and they explicit about that motivation.. They also support the strategy not merely of general war against Israel but the SPECIFIC tactic of suicide bombing of civilians, with its message of genocide (that is: any Jew will do for death--or, in the case of George Khoury which we have discussed, anyone who even LOOKS like a Jew will do for death).

Omar, as long as you prescibe and
support such a position, you and your friends are NOT covered in UN Res. 194.

Indeed, it was precisely the qualification about "living in peace with their neighbors" that led every Arab state voted AGAINST UNR 194.

Thus, Omar, you can NEVER again employ that argument about 194--not ever again--on HNN. Be warned: if you DO, we will catch and unmask you just as N.F. has done now, and show you up for the fool and hypocrite that you are, EVERY time.

One principle of scholarship, Omar, is that you cannot quote SELECTIVELY from documents. Just a moment of teaching from me, which I give in all basic undergraduate classes.

N. Friedman -
12/27/2006

Omar,

The historic norm is for those displaced in the creation of a country not to be allowed to be re-admitted. Such is the case in India, Pakistan, the former Czechoslovakia, Poland, etc.. Why should anyone make a special case for Palestinian Arabs? They certainly are not any more deserving, most especially given their decision to start murdering non-combatants.

Palestinian Arabs certainly did not have it as bad as either the Sudetens or the Indians. And unlike either of those groups, the Palestinian Arabs were combatants attempting to massacre the entire Jewish population. Why should the Israelis allow murderous people in, especially when they and their children deny their own actions?

And, notwithstanding your quotation from some legal source, the law does not require the rescue of belligerent people. UN 194 makes that point explicitly. And, to note - and consider this carefully, Omar, since it shows your point to be dishonest nonsense: the Arab states all voted against UN 194. Do you happen to know why, Omar? Evidently not. Here is the reason, as they stated openly at the time: UN 194 did not require Israel to take anyone in.

The Council of Europe also decided to side against that right of Palestinian Arabs. It would have created, for the first time in history, a precedent requiring what you claim to be the law and, as a result, Europe would have had to allow Sudetens to return to their homes. And, unlike the Palestinian Arabs, the Sudetens were not combatants. They were merely expelled. So, you see, your legal position is not quite what you think. In fact, your argument is nonsense.

The problem with you Omar is that you cite legal arguments that are irrelevant. There are as many as 50 million refugees in the world. Almost none will return to their place of origin. However, those with even the smallest bit of common sense try to find settlement somewhere.

art eckstein -
12/27/2006

No state is required to commit suicide. That's "principle one."

What occurred in 1948-1949 was tragic, but more Jews were expelled from Muslim lands in1948-1958 than Palestinians were "expelled" from the country that became israel.

Israel would be a lot smaller if the Arabs hadn't attacked it, in violation of numerous U.N. provisions. What hypocrisy to depend on the U.N. now--but then Muslim hypocrisy is bottomless.

Omar--if I go into a bar in downtown Washington D.C., under the illusion that I have suffered an injustice from "blacks", and I open up my submachine gun on any blacks in that bar--young, old, ANY black will do--am I not guilty of racism of the worse sort? That's the Palestinian TACTIC.

Can Jews buy land in the P.A.? Who's the Aparteheidist, then?

Omar, You have announced your purpose is the destruction of Israel. Everything you write is for that purpose.

Israel has a right of return for its own people. If the Palestinians had had any sense, they would already have their own country, to which any Palestinian could return--namely, the West Bank and Gaza. But they backed the Germans in WWI, the Nazis in WWII, the Communists in the Cold War, Saddam Hussein in 1991 and 2003, and they rejected Taba--for which President Clinton directly blamed Arafat, while Prince Bandar of Saudi Arabia (hardly a zionist, coming from a country where Jews cannot enter AT ALL) called Arafat a liar with whom it was impossible to deal.

Go on--blame everyone but yourselves. Show us just what a child you are. Oh--you've already done that.

art eckstein -
12/26/2006

And so...yet ANOTHER stupid anti-Israel argument from Barrie Lambert bites the dust.

The official European Union definition of anti-semitism, Barrie, definition of anti-semitism that I posted way above, includes double standards-- what is allowed every other democratic country as a polity per se is condemned in the Israeli case. You fit that definition of anti-semitism once again.

Good work, Y.A.

kikely yours, Barrie!

Art

art eckstein -
12/26/2006

The term Right of return reflects a belief [citation needed] that members of an ethnic or national group have a right to immigration and naturalization into the country that they, the country, or both consider to be that group's homeland, without prior personal citizenship in that country. This belief is sometimes reflected in special consideration in a country's immigration laws which facilitate or encourage the reunion of a diaspora or dispersed ethnic population.

As with other laws enacting rights of return, many of the laws in these countries appear to reflect a desire by governments to guarantee a safe haven to diaspora populations, particularly those assumed to be living under precarious conditions.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/26/2006

As explained here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_return

If you find yourself asking why Israel has this kind of law and you didn't ask yourself if the same legal principle is used in other countries, look in the mirror and you see a Jew hater !

Yehudi Amitz -
12/26/2006

I suggest you take Omar and pass through a Shia road block.
With kikely love.

art eckstein -
12/26/2006

N. F. and E. Simon:

Of course, I agree with what you've written just above.

kikely yours,

Art

Yehudi Amitz -
12/26/2006

I was only trying to give you the benefit of the doubt, you are the exception to the rule for the intellectually challenged. In other words you knew but Jews deserve to be killed. That's exactly what's expected from you, Barrie boy.

With kikely love.

E. Simon -
12/26/2006

So now I'm vying for the epitome of dumb? This from a man who resorts to justifying his stances on the grounds that his grandmama told him so, and to derogating others on spiritual/religious grounds. I hope all my future intellectual superiors also follow Barrie's example of never addressing any fact that they don't want to hear.

Barrie, it must be nice to have an ego so invincible that it is impossible to lower itself to such petty things as intellectual challenges.

E. Simon -
12/26/2006

An interesting experiment would be to see if merely repeating everything you say puts me in your good graces, since the last thing you, like Lambert, can obviously stand is to be challenged with a different point of view.

N. Friedman -
12/26/2006

Art,

Read Barrie's arguments. Pretty much the only facts that he cites are that Israel has a law of return and has a number of sayings used to attract Jews to migrate to Israel. He, however, is unable to explain how that law is racist or unusual.

Based on what he has written in his various posts, I think we may conclude the following:

1. Barrie makes arguments similar to those of an extreme right wing reactionary, seemingly believing in rights only for indigenous populations.

2. Barrie appears to have a special problem with Jews asserting the right to find refuge where it is available if that also means that Jews might assert the right to participate in governance. [An aside: One can only imagine what his views about Jews participating in the governance of Britain really are, since we already know that he has deep concern that Lord Levy is part of the government - although he refuses to say exactly why, for alleged fear that he would be sued for libel - which rather speaks to his reasons possibly being based on something other than facts.] [And a note to Barrie: people sued for libel, even in the UK, who have employed facts generally win. You might ask writer David Irving about that fine point of the law.]

3. Barrie ignores or denies facts he does not like.

4. Barrie seems to have no idea what racism is.

Barrie Lambert -
12/26/2006

"...intellectually challenged people, as you are, probably didn't have an internet connection in 1994."

Internetically challenged, perhaps, Yehudi? But who was not in 1994?

N. Friedman -
12/26/2006

Barrie,

Do you like to associate yourself with people who support genocide?

N. Friedman -
12/26/2006

Art,

The French law allows any person with "French blood" to return to France. That excludes most of France's Muslim and Jewish population.

The German law allows anyone of German heritage to return to France. It accordingly would exclude most of the country's Turkish population.

N. Friedman -
12/26/2006

Barrie,

What sort of conclusions could anyone draw from the above?

The most natural understanding of the statements is that all are typical of the kind of statements made by liberation movements.

Again, Barrie, you are the most extreme conservative I have ever read.

art eckstein -
12/26/2006

Barrie, the intellectual POINT is that you denied these incidents (the LAX and Brooklyn attacks) happened. But they did happen. You should be ashamed of denying that they did--on the basis of no evidence. Nobody among N.F., E. Simon or Elliott Green or myself is a liar. The only one deserving that title is Omar, as I have repeatedly proven.

Barrie, if you were a gentleman, you would apologize for denying the facts in the Brooklyn and LAX cases.

Barrie if you wre a gentleman, you would apologize for doubting the prevalence of savage Muslim violence, which I then proved via the polls I cited.
(Of course you seek to justify that violence but that's different from DENYING it exists, a fact that seems to have slipped by you. And in any case, Omar at least has been honest to say that the violence is a CHOICE, and that other groups have suffered worse and not resorted to violence; the Arabs/Muslims resort to such violence as a CHOICE, Omar indicates, because they are NOBLE.)

Barrie, if you were a gentleman, you would apologize for your disgraceful remarks about George Khoury, the victim of a racist Palestinian attack that hit the wrong target (an Israeli Arab; they were aiming at Jews--ANY Jews).

That OTHER incidents of Jew-hatred happened, committed by groups other than Arabs/Muslims, is irrelevant to the topic. That just means that OTHER groups besides Arabs/Muslims stupidly hate Jews as a group, and--LIKE Muslims and Arabs--are willing to kill all Jews, even children in a schoolbus (done by a Muslim), even a 20 year old girl, even a 65 year old man (done by a Muslim).

But to repeat--that other (white-supremacist) groups have the same racist attitude as Arabs/Muslims is irrelevant to the fact that Arabs/Muslims have that racist attitude, and that that stance is a Muslim/Arab CHOICE (as Omar says).

Finally, by using the term "white supremacist", you seem to indicate a willingness to see such attacks on Jews--where any Jew will do--as racist. It is. Including when it comes form Arabs/Muslims, and when it is backed by racist statements from Hamas, while meanwhile the genocidal Mein Kampf (THINK ABOUT IT) is the most popular book in the Middle East.

I know you don't like FACTS, Barrie, and cannot absorb them. I'm saying these things just for the record.

But I repeat--if you were the English gentleman you claim to be, you would apologize for the incidents I have listed above.

I leave out "kikely."

Yes--by all means leave the field. As quickly as possible.

Barrie Lambert -
12/26/2006

I think we've reached that point in the debate where the members of the Herd, to use Omar's - hopefully - developing taxonomy, demonstrate that their stance on the apartheid reality of Israel is not unlike that of a particularly unsavoury group of ghosts of an otherwise best forgotten generation of Millwall supporters doomed to eternally chant, “No one likes us, we don't care. No one likes us, we don't care........”, occasionally interspersed with odd cries of, "it's the Arabs wot dunnit, innit? Brought it on 'umselves, they did, wunnit?".

Still, now that E and Yehudi have given themselves over completely to mindlessly vying for position as the epitome of dumb (although Elliott and Peter have started to give them a strong race for their money in their most recent posts), I think this argument has pretty much run its natural course on the subject of the title of Mr Carter's recent book.

Perhaps we might prevail on him to write another book soon.

Nighty, night, then, until the next time....

art eckstein -
12/26/2006

Barrie, the intellectual POINT is that you denied these incidents happened. But they did happen. You should be ashamed of denying that they did--on the basis of no evidence. Nobody among N.F., E. Simon or Elliott Green or myself is a liar. The only one deserving that title is Omar, as I have repeatedly proven.

Barrie, if you were a gentleman, you would apologize for denying the facts in the Brooklyn and LAX cases.

Barrie if you wre a gentleman, you would apologize for doubting the prevalence of savage Muslim violence, which I then proved via the polls I cited.
(Of course you seek to justify that violence but that's different from DENYING it exists, a fact that seems to have slipped by you. And in any case, Omar at least has been honest to say that the violence is a CHOICE, and that other groups have suffered worse and not resorted to violence; the Arabs/Muslims resort to such violence as a CHOICE, Omar indicates, because they are NOBLE.)

Barrie, if you were a gentleman, you would apologize for your disgraceful remarks about George Khoury, the victim of a racist Palestinian attack that hit the wrong target (an Israeli Arab; they were aiming at Jews--ANY Jews).

That OTHER incidents of Jew-hatred happened, committed by groups other than Arabs/Muslims, is irrelevant to the topic. That just means that OTHER groups besides Arabs/Muslims stupidly hate Jews as a group, and--LIKE Muslims and Arabs--are willing to kill all Jews, even children in a schoolbus (done by a Muslim), even a 20 year old girl, even a 65 year old man (done by a Muslim).

But to repeat--that other (white-supremacist) groups have the same racist attitude as Arabs/Muslims is irrelevant to the fact that Arabs/Muslims have that racist attitude, and that that stance is a Muslim/Arab CHOICE (as Omar says).

Finally, by using the term "white supremacist", you seem to indicate a willingness to see such attacks on Jews--where any Jew will do--as racist. It is. Including when it comes form Arabs/Muslims, and when it is backed by racist statements from Hamas, while meanwhile the genocidal Mein Kampf (THINK ABOUT IT) is the most popular book in the Middle East.

I know you don't like FACTS, Barrie, and cannot absorb them. I'm saying these things just for the record.

But I repeat--if you were the English gentleman you claim to be, you would apologize for the incidents I have listed above.

I leave out "kikely."

Barrie Lambert -
12/26/2006

That's interesting Art. Of two different homicidal attacks on Jews in Los Angeles you choose to comment on the atrocity committed by an Egyptian, yet ignore that committed by a white supremacist. How very enlightening.

Oh, and doesn't the Wagnerian model for The Lord of the Rings provide an obvious connection with Mein Kampf?

OK, Art, you seem to be saying that the Israelis do not seek a "ruthless and relentless identification of Jewish interest with support for Israel and the criminal policies it pursues against members of the population whose lives it controls, and against its neighbours". So how would you describe it, then?

art eckstein -
12/26/2006

Barrie,

1. France and Germany DO have right of return laws.

My colleague's great-grandmother was born in Scotland of German-heritage parents, and grew up in Riga, Latvia, then went to the U.S., but when she went to Germany she could get German citizenship instantly, and she was tempted to do so.

The argument about continuous presence fails, too, since Jews have maintained a continuous presence in the Holy Land.

NONE of this would be an argument if the Arabs had recognized what was a peaceful creation of Israel by the UN in 1948; and the law of return would simply be a normal European-style law. Instead they attacked.

As usual, as I have sadly learned, you don't know what you are talking about, Barrie.

2. Barrie, you denied N.F.'s statement about massive Arab/Muslim support for violent jihad (and that's aggressive military spreading of the religion, as in the first 200 years of the religion, and as late as 1683 at Vienna, and your British Muslim leaders saying publicly that "I long for the day when the Black Flag of Islam flies over Britain, for Britain does NOT belong to the British, but to Allah").

So I provided the information.

Now, you seek some sort of grotesque justification for the hideous findings of these polls, in which Arabs remain passive victims instead of arrogant, vicious aggressors. That's as may be, but YOUR position was NOT that these feelings were justified, but that they did not EXIST. In our discussion above, you were wrong--factually wrong. Not for the first time. Yet your grotesque factual errors never bother you, they don't phase you or make you think, and you just shift your ground of argument.

It's intellectually disgraceful.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/26/2006

The 2003 killing was very well reflected in the media and only a Jew hater, like you, can question it in any way. The 1994 killing was very well reflected in "The New York Times" and in the Connecticut (where I live) press, but intellectually challenged people, as you are, probably didn't have an internet connection in 1994.
Your comment about the site is a classic Jew hater. "Then Satan Said" is a poem by Nathan Alterman an Israeli national poet. But in your sick mind everything Jewish is to hate, out of political or historic context, out of any comparison unless is bad for the Jews.
Normally you herd with Omar as the staunch defender of Islamic backwardness.
By the way, Barrie boy, google.com returns 97 hits on the search

"March 1, 1994" "Brooklyn bridge"

The other event is very easy to find, even for an intellectually challenged Jew hater.

Kikely yours.

art eckstein -
12/26/2006

The Arab Israeli George Khoury was attending Hebrew University and jogging as he always did in an upscale Jewish neighborhood when he was mistaken for a Jew (ANY Jew will do for racist Palestinians) and gunned down.

That sort of thing didn't happen in South Africa, you ass.

art eckstein -
12/26/2006

Both the above events HAPPENED, Barrie.

I well remember the terrible July 2003 incident, since I am from Los Angeles and often pass through LAX to visit my parents. One of the people the Egyptian perpetrator, Mohammad Hayadet, killed was a 20 year old girl; another victim was 65.

Now you are reduced to simply DENYING FACTS. Shameful--or is it shameless?

You need to consider the "popular" cultural argument a bit more carefully:

One popular culture likes The Lord of the Rings, the other likes Mein Kampf. The last culture that liked Mein Kampf committed genocide, and you have been provided more than ample evidence that this is (e.g.) Hamas doctrine, and Hamas PRACTICE (not to mention Ahmedinejad's announced plans).

One popular culture turns out 1/12 of the ENTIRE population of the country to publicly PROTEST in the most massive way the killing of innocent civilians (that's in the Nahum Goldman mosque masscre), the other CELEBRATES such people by names streets, squares and soccer stadiums after the perpetrators.

Yet YOU describe the FIRST culture as "ruthless", while giving the SECOND culture a pass.

Your argument is grotesque, Barrie. Disgraceful.

Barrie Lambert -
12/26/2006

Art, I really can't find where I deny "the great Arab/Muslim support for violence", because it simply isn't true.

I suppose if I were "Arab/Muslim" I would, in all probability, support violence myself. After all, violence does beget violence.

As it is, as a relative outsider, I do not support violence, but I understand why so many of the people you describe as "Arab/Muslim" do, as do many others who fall outside that category. I think the onus lies on the strongest in a violent relationship to offer, and repeatedly offer, without violence and whatever the rebuffs, an equitable peace.

Sadly, you disagree.

Barrie Lambert -
12/26/2006

Sorry, Peter, I was probably thinking of Wagner's description of Beethoven' 7th symphony at the time.

However, you may recognise these quotations:

"The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people."

"Exiled from the Land of Israe; the Jewish people remained faithful to it...."

"....the re-establishment of the Jewish State, which would open the gates to all Jews...."

"1. Every Jew has the right to immigrate to this country."

I've drawn my conclusions, now you draw yours.

Barrie Lambert -
12/26/2006

And the territories they inhabit have continuously supported distinctively French and German populations, however defined, for millennia, and their laws are expressed in terms of evidence of patriality (I think that's the term) and not simply of any racial, ethnic or religious pre-disposition.

Barrie Lambert -
12/26/2006

Yeah, right, Yehudi. And I've got real confidence in any website that opens up quoting Satan.

Barrie Lambert -
12/26/2006

This may be something to do with the nature of popular culture. Why Harry Potter? Why the Bible? Why Christmas Day TV?

But, then, what makes you wonder why your political opponents use rhetoric as thoughtlessly as you do? Or why the ramblings of St John the Revelator drives the musings of so many Evangelicals supporters of Israel? And, for that matter, why did God choose to gather John Cash in his arms and not Clff Richard?

All of them questions which probably deserve to have some sort of answer made by someone someday, even if it is not definitive. However, n the case of your question regarding Mein Kampf, I would hazard a guess that it is a rational response to the Israeli state's ruthless and relentless identification of Jewish interest with support for Israel and the criminal policies it pursues against members of the population whose lives it controls, and against its neighbours; and, I suspect, the same is true of the verse you mention from the Koran.

I hope this proves of some assistance to you, Art.

Barrie Lambert -
12/26/2006

Vot es purmp?

N. Friedman -
12/26/2006

Barrie,

You write: "I'm a lot less keen on his sources though (or any sources)."

The problem with this view, Barrie, is that it is the little facts that must have your attention if you are to have a remotely informed opinion. The alternative - your approach - is to yoke together likes and unlikes without understanding the differences - just as a brute would do. The inability to distinguish one thing from another leads to blind hate. And, frankly, that is what your position amounts to.

Now, I am well aware that a person reading the paper in your country might come away thinking that Israel, where fewer than 5,000 people had died in a five year war, is the horror spot of the Earth. That may explain, at least in part, why you do not think there is any reason to resort to facts - after all, it is all so obvious what is going on. Or, so you think.

But, to us dumb Americans, things are not so obvious at all. Our papers show a great deal more about the actual positions of Palestinian Arabs and take a lot more skeptical view of what, in your country, is basically not examined, namely, the actual goals of Palestinian Arabs. And, what you claim to believe and what Palestinian Arabs say they want are unrelated - to the extent that only a far right wing reactionary could hold the position you hold.

You also make one of those little errors - actually, this one is a whopper of true ignorance - that knowing some facts would help with, when you discuss forming a racially defined nation. Jews certainly wanted a place to call home and certainly wanted to participate in politics from the outset. Those ,of course, are basic human rights. But, the dominant position of Jews - until they were attacked - was to form a state with Arabs, and not to impose anything on them. This is not a contentious point, Barrie. Even the right wing Jabotinsky held that view. So, there was no intention to impose a racist state - and, to be sure, a racist state was not created.

Lastly, everything you have written suggests you are a right winger of the most reactionary stripe.

N. Friedman -
12/26/2006

Barrie,

If you want to be taken seriously, you have actually to resort to evidence and argument, not just propaganda.

The point here is that if you want to be taken seriously, you have to make serious arguments with real evidence, not just propaganda points that fail as soon as it is pointed out that what Israel does is no different from what occurs in places that raise none of your ire. And, frankly, as I see it, you are a big time hypocrite if you really believe some of your propaganda points.

N. Friedman -
12/26/2006

Art,

Barrie is an amazing fellow. He is also a paradigm, like Omar. And, we can learn something about European views about Israel from reading his rants.

To be serious, I do not really think he knows enough to have a real debate.

N. Friedman -
12/26/2006

Barrie,

Why is it that you can resort to living in the "real world" when it comes to Britain? How about employing the same notions for Israel. In the real world, Israel is surrounded by enemies and has a fifth column population within. And, it is surrounded by people who celebrate people who kill civilians. Or, in simple terms, Israel basically lives in a neighborhood of barbarous peoples.

N. Friedman -
12/26/2006

Barrie,

You keep quoting the law of return as being racist. I do not see that to be the case. I think such manner of law is not uncommon, even in Europe, and it is certainly not racist. I am reminded that Germany and France have right of return laws.

I really do not think they are racist laws. I think you do not understand what racism is.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/26/2006

"On March 1, 1994, near the Brooklyn Bridge in New York City, a Lebanese immigrant opened fire on a minibus carrying Lubavicher yeshiva students, killing one of them and injuring three others. He was charged and convicted of murder, attempted murder, and illegal possession of weapons. The government refused to treat it as a terrorist act."
For the next one, be happy, it was the El Al counter and it doesn't count in your book, but is LA and against Jews:
"On July 5, 2003, an Egyptian immigrant opened fire at the crowd near the El Al counter in the Los Angeles International Airport, killing two and injuring six. The shooter was killed by an El Al security officer. The government refused to treat it as a terrorist act."

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

Barrie Lambert's response to me, up above, at 3:04 p.m. is simply incoherent.

The OJ jury parallel is obvious: this racially-biased jury refused to believe the evidence against Simpson, which everyone knows now (despite its flaws) an ordinary jury would have convicted on. That's not speculation: an ordinary jury (a civil jury) a year later DID convict him on that vert evidence, and required him to pay $32 million in damages.

Similar to the first, biased criminal jury in the OJ case, Barrie Lambert's response to any evidence that disturbs his Chamberlainesque worldview is to call it "gossip" or else to deny the obvious meaning of what it says, or else simply to ignore it.. Increasingly, his only response to the piling up of more and more evidence and more and more specific facts against him is a helpless sneer.

It's noticeable that as this conversation has continued, Lambert has become more and more incoherent, more and more snide, more and more off the topic, and has deployed fewer and fewer facts.

Barrie, I urge you to get a grip and try to hold an adult conversation where facts actually matter please.

In any case, the real sign of Barrie's slide into total intellectual degradation was his truly disgraceful intellectual display over the George Khoury murder. It's been sharply downhill from there. A real gentleman would have apologized for making grotesque speculations against the victim of this tragedy, made on the basis of absolutely no evidence, made for the sole purpose of trying to make Israel look bad when what we have is aan example of Palestinian genocidal racism (wrong target, as it turned out--an Arab killed by mistake, instead of any old Jew).

Ever since Barrie was shown to be so totally and disgracefully wrong on Khoury, rather than accepting the implications of that murder, he's resorted more and more to jokes and sneers.

I guess that's because he has no serious arguments or evidence to give us, and in addition has shown himself incapable of absorbing (and in some cases, even acknowledging) the specific evidence and logical arguments of others.

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

You know, a lot of this started with Barrie simply denying, on the basis of nothing, the great Arab/Muslim support for violence.

So, I presented him with some polls showing great Arab/Muslim support for violence, including against Britain. (My postings, Dec. 24 and 7:46 p.m. and 8:34 p.m.)

That is, I presented him with specific and strong EVIDENCE of an assertion made by N.F..

Response of Barry to specific evidence?

None.

Of course.

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

Been at Christmas dinner, so missed all of this.

Lambert is way off, as usual. If it's just anti-Israel,and not anti-Jews, Barrie, why is MEIN KAMPF the second largest selling book in the Middle East beyond the Koran? Why did the head of Hezbollah say that it would be good if all the Jews in the world could be gathered within the Zionist entity, then they could all be destroyed at once? Why does Hamas rely on the apocalyptic verse from the Koran about killing Jews wherever you find them?

Now, I don't expect you to be convinced by any of this. Because EVIDENCE for you is just "gossip."
But those are the facts.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

You actually seem to be right about one thing, Yehudi. Must be a personal best for you. A bomb did explode in the Argentinian Israelite Mutual Association building in 1994, two years after the Israeli Embassy bombing in Buenos Aires. Iran was accused of involvement but denies it to this day suggesting the accusation is a zionist plot to draw "world attention from the perpetration of crimes by the Zionists against women and children in Palestine". I can see why, in asymmetrical warfare, both buildings may have been deemed legitimate targets, although that excuses neither the attacks nor the human consequences. And we must bear in mind that, although suspects on occasion have been named, no one has been convicted of either bombing.

The nearest I could get to a Los Angeles story close enough to your account to fit was that of Burford Furrow Jnr, a white supremacist, not an Arab, who shot a group of kids in a Jewish School in a Jewish Centre. But he certainly wasn't an Arab. And I couldn't find any story to match yours of "Arabs who attacked Jewish children in New York", although I'm not saying it didn't happen.

I can see why "they" may kill "Israeli consular staff in these (which ones?) cities" because they were Israeli consular staff, and it is less probable to accept that they did it - that is, assuming these killings actually happened in the first place - because "they killed Jews for the joy of killing Jews". Gossip and speculation about motives is not a sound basis for judgement, although I have no doubt this will strike you as being completely unfair and, no doubt, deeply anti-semitic.

And that's the problem with all your arguments in all your posts - they just never seem to hold together. They're ust a series of offensive burps, bangs and blusters, lazily and thoughtlessly presented, allowing you to affect the most bizarre attitudes imaginable whilst encouraging you to strike the most ridiculous poses. All good reasons never to take you seriously, anyway. But I think Omar finds you entertaining, so maybe all is not lost.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/25/2006

Do you believe what you are saying, Barrie boy? Did the Arabs who blew up the Jewish center in Buenos Aires or the Arabs who attacked Jewish children in New York and Los Angeles distinguish Between Jews and Israelis. The same about Jews killed by Muslims in Paris. They didn't kill Israeli consular staff in these cities they killed Jews for the joy of killing Jews.

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

I once referred to Omar's over-reliance on the limiting form of punctuation known as the exclamation mark - (an over-reliance that you emulate here, I see) - as "rhetorical orgasms". Apparently that's the type of of rhythm that pumps you up.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

Yep! But he's good a great sense of rhythm!

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

"At present, the hate is primarily anti-Jewish": could be but my impression is that hatred is primarily directed against Israel and the IDF and only secondarily against the Israeli Jewish and US Jewish. Most other Jews fall beneath the radar unless they choose to visit Israel

The Arabs and Palestinians I have known do distinguish carefully between Israel, Israelis and Jews. This might be less the case with Muslims not so close to the problem, and the categories may well merge in their minds.

I have difficulty with the polls purporting to measure these things; you may view them more favorably than I do.

Peter Kovachev -
12/25/2006

That's quite a flop, Barrie. Your use, or rather misuse of the word "apotheosis" doesn't compensate for the inanity of your statement. Neither does referring us to the cooky wash-outs who don't even make sense in their own messed-up heads, never mind to anyone but skinheads, Marxists and Iranians.

How about trying to tackle some more basic stuff, like, do you know what racism means? Or, how is an immigration policy which actively brings in people of all "races," e.g., Black Ethiopians, Central and East Asians, Russians and others "racist"? Or, how does Israel's Law of Return differ from the immigration policies of dozens of nations which favour people from their ethnic groups, or on grounds of business investment, ability, education, language, etc.? Can you name those countries?

If you have no clue, better that you don't bother answering, rather than boring us with your coy non-answers.

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

Notice that the chorus Barrie feels himself to be a part of is Omar's. Scintillating quality of intellectual company he decides to keep.

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

Barrie, the way you display your ignorance was never funny to begin with. And it's starting to match the incoherence of what you write above.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

No, N, the Chorus follows the action, and then judges.

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

I think you will find that making a point works best when you actually have one to make.

Apparently my point here is to convey something more than just sarcasm.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

That's the real world though, N, but in the face of the problems posed by climate change, Monarchy may prove to be a more effective system of government than liberal democracy. Ever though about that one?

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

Mr Simon, you may find it more truthful to revise your previous argument, addressed to Omar, thus:

"...without the slightest twinge of respect for what your opposition has to say in response" to us so we say "stupid, ignorant and hateful things over and over again" to you, which more fairly reflects the true position."

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

Well, N, for one, the Law of Return, 1950, is the apotheosis of Jewish racism, and the engine of Jewish apartheid and Israeli territorial expansion.

Do for starters? So then use Finkelstein, Chomsky and Pappas to fill you in.

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Being subjects to a majesty sounds primitive.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

A question I've never really had cause to consider before: can you be a citizen of an entity that is not a state and is not internationally recognised as a state? Can you, therefore, sensibly compare a non-state entity to a state?

The question doesn't arise in the same way in the UK because, although we have a state, we are not citizens but, rather, subjects of Her Majesty.

I think you will also find that sarcasm works best when delivered with a much lighter touch, and leavened by a modest quantity considered knowledge and thought.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

If Elliott makes the argument, it is. I'm a lot less keen on his sources though (or any sources). I think my posting fairly indicates the inadequacy of the documentary sources and represents mainstream opinion on this highly contentious matter. I find myself in the strange position of agreeing with you, N, the issue here is not who had the largest population.

I also believe in the right to refuge, but not in the right of refugees - sorry, vibrant immigrants - to lay claim and then impose a racially defined nation state on the land of the host population.

And as for being an "extreme reactionary", what can I possibly say? A reactionary of the left, perhaps? Interesting idea.

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

Read what I wrote again. You missed the point.

There are both Anti-Zionism and Anti-Jewish issues on the Arab Muslim side, today and in the past. As I said, these issues have manifested themselves in different degrees at different times.

At present, the hate is primarily anti-Jewish - and, in no small measure, Arab Muslim opinion does not always fully distinguish objection to Israel from objection to Jews - so it is not always possible to know what voice, if not both voices, may be speaking. But, I do not think there is any doubt that, today, the primary voice on the Arab Muslim side is Islamic, which means that the opposition to Israel pertains mostly to its Jewish character or, perhaps more generation, to its non-Muslim character. Or, as the Islamist formula would go, a non-Muslim state is, by definition, illegitimate and unjust.

In any event, Art's comments were perfectly fine. You are carping on words of no special moment. What remains to be seen is if you are able to show arguments to support your contention about Israel. Thus far, it is all rhetoric and no evidence. I suggest that you do not have any evidence for your views, which is why you are so heavy on rhetoric.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

Not very kind, Elliott...

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

Well, the chorus is singing a foul tune.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

No. The Chorus.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

I think you need to work this one out with Art, N. I just kick over what he puts up and, at the time he wrote it, he seemed to be thinking about "now", not "then" (and, of course, all this can change in Art's mind in the blink of an eye) but who am I to say?.

Perhaps this is the ideal opportunity for both of you to demonstrate the value of pluralism in debate to Omar.

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,
As you said, outside of the US and Israel, most world opinion is hostile to Israel.

If Israel's friends are the herd, what praytell, are you? The mob?

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

The enemy of Israel/Zionism versus the enemy of Jews is, of course, a peculiar argument. Today, it is as enemies of Jews that the Muslim Arab and greater Muslim region holds itself out. Whether it was merely the enmity of Arabs versus Zionists in 1948 is another matter. If we are to be honest, it is a bit of both - although one or the other may have predominated at that time.

So, what you see as a contradiction is not a contradiction at all, if you were to, for one moment, understand that 1948 and 2006 are not the same year.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

What an astonishingly mature, scholarly and insightful critique. Don't you think we should we welcome Fern to the herd, Omar?

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

The enemy of Israel/Zionism versus the enemy of Jews is, of course, a peculiar argument. Today, it is as enemies of Jews that the Muslim Arab and greater Muslim region holds itself out. Whether it was merely the enmity of Arabs versus Zionists in 1948 is another matter. If we are to be honest, it is a bit of both - although one or the other may have predominated at that time.

So, what you see as a contradiction is not a contradiction at all, if you were to, for one moment, understand that 1948 and 2006 are not the same year.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

Sometimes i just can't tell my Art from my Elliott, but I think I've got it right this time around.

Anyway, Art has managed to get his act together enough to make one very important point: "It was the Arabs who declared Israel the enemy (not vice versa)--the enemy of the existence of Israel."

“The enemy of the existence of Israel”, but not the enemy of the existence of the Jews, as we are so often informed by frequently herd contributors to the HNN site. For instance, as no less an authority on the meaning of existence than Art himself did yesterday:

“Re: Classic Freudian finger slip and very normal for Lambert and Clarke (#103624)
by art eckstein on December 24, 2006 at 10:13 PM

“2. Your response to the significant evidence presented by N.F. is simply "I'm not convinced." You don't say why, and you don't offer not the slightest counter-argument or evidence. That is intellectually completely unsound. Or are you simply trying out for a place on the O.J. jury?"

Contradiction, paradox, or just a long way beyond any conceivable sense of shame? Oh, and the OJ trial is over and the verdict came in long ago... unless, of course, Art sees me as an easy mark for his new time travel business......

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Art,

Barrie is, in a sense, interested in facts if those facts support his view. But, he does not seem to have any. Note: he has cited not one fact to support his apartheid argument. It is all assertion.

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

Omar writes:

"At that stage, as is normal and expected, ALL closed ranks against the declared enemy and a united front was sought by ALL."

1. It was the Arabs who declared Israel the enemy (not vice versa)--the enemy of the existence of Israel. Omar has at least been honest about his own violent position here--he wants Israel destroyed, no negotiations, no nothing, and he says that's the common Muslim position--though Barrie Lambert doesn't want to believe what he says.

2. Note that Omar takes this "closing ranks" about expressed opinion as natural. Well, it may be natural among primitive societies, or those ruled by mullahs and the public opinion of the umma, or violent honor societies, but one can problematize this reaction by pointing out that it is not necessarily "natural" in ALL societies, and above all not in sophisticated societies. Israel, literally surrounded by violent enemies bent on its destruction ever since 1948, has had PLENTY of internal dissent, including a large and public peace movement which has staged massive public protests. Massive peace movements are something totally missing from the Islamic world--because they don't believe in peace with "the enemy." Omar, that makes Israel a better and more sophisticated society for freedom of speech than any Arab or Muslim culture. Period.

So, once more (as in numerous postings above), Omar mistakes his own narrow and intellectually and culturally stunted society for that of the whole world, and especially for that of the developed and modern world.

Fern Sidman -
12/25/2006

There is no question that Carter's use of the term "apartheid" is not only appalling but it lacks scholarly foundation. His purposeful injection of this inflammatory term was meant to set the tone for the rest of the "dribble" found in his book. His assertions of Israel's oppression of the Palestinians and Israel's "intransigence" in all peace making efforts are predicated on Carter's skewed and subjective personal opinions, but not fact. He is a man who is seething with anger that his political career came to a demise after one term as president, and blames it on Israel for not acquiescing to his pressure to relinquish territory and to make other major concessions to the Arabs. There is no question that Carter couldn't manipulate Menachem Begin and use him as a pawn to garner his place in history as the "great peace maker" in the Middle East. The fact that Carter's book lacks any footnotes and scholarly references leads the reader to believe that this book's premise is based entirely on Carter's personal agenda. The Arab propogandists of the world must be thrilled. A book written by an ex-President that touts their lies and distortions, disguised as an intellectual treatise, is something money can't buy.

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

I am glad to hear that you value pluralism and intellectual diversity, Omar. I'm sure this means that I can now look forward to hearing your positive appraisal of Muslims who dare to see things differently than you do, starting with Wafa Sultan and Irshad Manji.

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

Folks, this was the argument that Omar was NOT responding to when he just reiterated his "13 centuries" nonsense.. Perhaps he didn't dare to. Perhaps he didn't read it.

by art eckstein on December 25, 2006 at 10:43 AM
Omar, you ignorant person, if you had only read my posting carefully you would have seen my point that Israel was created peacefully and legally by a U.N. Declaration. That UN Declaration was then violated by the ARAB states who began war and invasion. SINCE YOU ARE DEFINING WAR AS IPSO FACTO A DESPICABLY RETROGRADE ACT, THEN THAT"S THE RETROGRADE ACT THAT GOES BACK 1300 YEARS, OMAR. (I said this briefly, but you can't read, so it's not surprising that you missed it.)

Now, as it happened, the Jews won that war, against very great odds. That's what you can't forgive, but don't call the Israelis retrograde when the war came from the Arab side. THEY, and no one else, took the issue to the seventh century.

I'll tell you what, Omar: if you give up Muslim claims to rule Morroco, and Egypt (both conquered by force), AND Jerusalem (the latter conquered by force in the 630s), and give up Islam as the state religion of Pakistan (conquered by force)--give up those areas of Muslim rule based on conquest to begin with-- and we can begin to talk about the Israeli situation.

I'm waiting.

There are mosques in Israel--no Jew can enter Saudi Arabia, let alone set up a congregation (Christians can't set up congregations). And it's the Jews who are attacked as intolerant. WHAT HYPOCRISY

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

The issue here is not who had the largest population. The right to migrate to a place where refuge can be found is as basic a human right as is known to man. Barrie opposes this right, viewing it as a typical reactionary from a landed society would.

His reaction is not much different - except in its vileness given the vicarious position that Israel is in, but which he denies - than European reactions to America over the ages. And, it has some of the same roots, namely, that landed societies cannot understand the vibrancy of an immigrant society. Or, in simple terms, Barrie is an extreme reactionary.

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

Your ignorance, Omar, is actually hilarious. Side-splitting, in fact.

What am I supposed to do? Watch you say stupid, ignorant and hateful things over and over again, without the slightest twinge of respect for what your opposition has to say in response, and take pity on how you so evidently display what you do not even pretend to know? That would only reduce me to your level of stupidity. No, when it comes to the indignation you display over things that clearly don't make any sense, it's actually funny.

It's a kind of comedic technique that's making Sacha Baron Cohen filthy rich - only we don't even have to set you up.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/25/2006

If there is no such a Muslim, isn't because fear of allah but because his life would be in danger. If we accept the criticism of an atheist, Salman Rushdie could be one and he was in hiding for many years.

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

Well, actually, my opinion comes from the fact that she was known to be rather pro-Israeli, not because she may have made a donation. I note that, after Israel came to be and, particularly but not only at the time of the Six Day War, Jewish opinion tended toward positive sentiments regarding Israel. She was no exception although she was, by any reasonable standards, a Jew only in name, knowing essentially nothing about Judaism.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

Better green than herd, perhaps?

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

Response of Omar: does he actually read the other side's argument and respond? No.

His idea of an argument is simply to reiterate his own ignorance.

It's the sign of a degenerate culture. That's not me, Omar--that's the great Syrian poet "Adonis" speaking, last March. Only he didn't say "degenerate culture." He said, "Dead culture."

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

"Another problem with her was her activities in the framework of the Congress of Cultural Freedom." OH, AND THIS CLEARS THINGS UP EVEN MORE, ART.

Barrie, you're responding to Green, not to Eckstein: I know we all seem alike to you, Barrie, but we're not. Do try to keep your Jews separate.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

"One of the problems with Arendt was her affair with Heidegger. Apparently, she went through a very powerful Germanophilic stage with left permanent marks on her thinking." RIGHT. THAT EXPLAINS EVERYTHING, THEN. IT'S ALL BECOMING CLEAR TO ME NOW

"Another problem with her was her activities in the framework of the Congress of Cultural Freedom." OH, AND THIS CLEARS THINGS UP EVEN MORE, ART.

"By the way, Barrie, can you explain why the LRB reviewer does not mention Arab collaboration with the Nazis?" MOST LIKELY BECAUSE OF ITS TOTAL LACK OF RELEVANCE, I SHOULD IMAGINE. OR MAYBE HE HAS A VERY POWERFUL AND EXACTING SOCIAL CONSCIENCE AND JUST DOESN'T FEEL IT IS OBLIGATORY TO MAKE HIS AUDIENCE KEEL OVER AND DROP IN A CHRONIC SPASM OF BOREDOM INDUCED YAWNING WITHOUT FIRST GIVING THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO BEG FOR MERCY.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/25/2006

One of the problems with Arendt was her affair with Heidegger. Apparently, she went through a very powerful Germanophilic stage with left permanent marks on her thinking.
Another problem with her was her activities in the framework of the Congress of Cultural Freedom.
I also note that excerpts from the review do not mention the Palestinian Arab collaboration with the Nazis and their participation in the Holocaust, or the imitation of and collaboration with the Nazis by various Arab political movements. These include the Ba`ath Socialist party, still ruling Syria, and which ruled Iraq until 2003, the Nasserite Free Officers of which Sadat was a member, the Syrian Socialist Nationalist Party [led by Antun Sa`ada], the Arab Higher Committee of Palestine led by Haj Amin el-Husseini, the arch Arab Nazi collaborator-Holocaust collaborator, the Muslim Brotherhood [the Ikhwan], etc.
In my view, Arendt's criticisms of Zionism may have been a sophisticated form of self-exculpation for her own Germanophilic background, by which I mean worship of Germany in the Kantian-Hegelian-Treitschkean mode, which would have been most likely for anyone as close to Heidegger as she was.
By the way, Barrie, can you explain why the LRB reviewer does not mention Arab collaboration with the Nazis?

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

Is this extract from an article by Scott McLemee the sort of thing you have in mind, N?

The Chronicle of Higher Education: Research & Publishing
From the issue dated November 12, 2004

Arendt Biographer Corrects Mistake Linking Her to Jewish Terrorist Group

By SCOTT McLEMEE

In the newly reissued paperback edition of her acclaimed biography, Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World, Elisabeth Young-Bruehl says she made only one significant mistake in the original, published by Yale University Press more than two decades ago. But it was a doozy. And the repercussions are bound to echo much louder now, thanks to the correction.

In 1982 Ms. Young-Bruehl, then an associate professor of letters at Wesleyan University, wrote that Arendt made donations to the Jewish Defense League, a terrorist group, in 1967 and 1973. Actually, the biographer now says, the donations were to the United Jewish Appeal, a philanthropic organization. Ms. Young-Bruehl also says Edward Said repeated the misinformation, then ignored her effort to set the record straight.

The correction, along with a complaint about Said, is tucked away in a footnote to the preface to the book's second edition, published this month by Yale. Interest in Arendt's work on political philosophy has grown around the world since her death, in 1975. Part of the German-Jewish exodus of the 1930s, she arrived in 1941 in the United States, where she wrote one of the landmark works of 20th-century political thought, The Origins of Totalitarianism (1951).

Also international in influence was Edward Said, for his literary scholarship and his advocacy of the Palestinian cause. Said, who died in 2003, was a professor of English and comparative literature at Columbia University, where Ms. Young-Bruehl is now on the faculty of the Center for Psychoanalytic Training and Research.

Add the Jewish Defense League -- a violent organization that emerged in New York during the late 1960s and later became a controversial factor in Israeli politics -- and Ms. Young-Bruehl's inconspicuous footnote begins to look like a global incident.

"In 1973, when Egypt and Syria invaded Israeli territory on Yom Kippur," wrote Ms. Young-Bruehl in the first edition of her book, "Arendt made a contribution to the Jewish Defense League, as she had in 1967," the year of the Six-Day War. The biographer offers no documentation for the claim and never again mentions the organization.

The statement is all the more surprising because it is so perfunctory. One would never suspect from the reference in Hannah Arendt: For Love of the World that a prominent Jewish organization, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, had denounced the "racism, violence, and political extremism" of the Jewish Defense League, which over the years committed dozens of assaults, bombings, and other acts of terror.

A Cut-and-Paste Mistake

So why did Ms. Young-Bruehl not mention that? "The short answer," she said last week, "is that I didn't know." She described working with an enormous typewritten manuscript having "quite a lot of places with pieces of paper taped onto it for revisions." Her mistake was literally a matter of cut-and-paste.

In any case, Arendt could not have made a donation to the Jewish Defense League in 1967, if only because the group, commonly known as the JDL, was not formed until the following year.

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

But N.F.:

Barrie isn't interested in FACTS, or POLLS (say, about Muslim support for violence in the name of Islam). He has his ignorant bien-pensant opinions, and now we can say that they are intentionally ignorant bien-pensant opinions, and nothing--no facts, no evidence--we can do or say can change those. He dismisses it all as "gossip."

This is the sad conclusion I have come to with this person.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/25/2006

The Pope is very knowledgeable, as the former head of the Inquisition he knows all the tricks.
In the Lambert style, I remind you to show me s Muslim Arendt.
By the way I understand your cut and paste, from the article, you didn't want your Jew hatred impeded by the books Arendt wrote about red and brown (there were other colors but the fecal one is the best) totalitarianism.

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

Again, Barrie--Fatah didn't apologize for killing a civilian jogger; no, they don't mind doing that, or killing children on busses eaither. They apologized because the jogger they killed in the upscale neighborhood was an Arab and not a Jew. Period.

Who is the racist in that scenario, Barrie?

Elliott Aron Green -
12/25/2006

Barrie,
Neither Arab nor Jew represents a skin color, at least not in reality, although perhaps in the fantasies of UK and other EU 3rd-worldists. Europeans have long viewed Jews as alien to Europe [not all Europeans, to be sure]. One hundred years ago, the British best-selling novelist [and friend of Henry James, I believe], George DuMaurier, wrote Trilby. The villain of Trilby is a swarthy Jew, from Poland, no less, named Svengali. So, 100 years ago, British novelists [and not only DuMaurier] considered Jews alien and sinister and swarthy [swarthiness being a sign of their alien nature to Britain]. The German Nazis too [and not only the Nazis in Germany] considered Jews alien and swarthy and evil, etc. What has happened since WW2 is that the Jews' alien nature has been transposed from Europe to the Middle East in the Euro-Judeophobe's mind. Whereas before WW2, the Jews in Britain were regularly described as Orientals, after the Holocaust and after the rise of Israel Jews came to be considered the most Nordic of all, the whitest of white, and therefore alien by their color to the Middle East. However, I can tell you that I have been taken for an Arab by Arabs, who approached me and started asking questions in their lingo. As to color, my mother's father was actually brown. My mother was described as olive-skinned, or in Yiddish, as Shvarts-kheyn-evdik [darkly attractive]. She was quite proud to tell me how her beauty was perceived in her father's Yiddish-speaking circle. My cousins on my father's side are swarthy too. Anyhow, the truth is that there is a wide range of skin colors among both Jews and Arabs. So your "alternative" "hypotheses" possibilities above are factually wrong. Now, one of the features of South African apartheid was that Blacks could not ride buses with Whites. But here, Arabs have gotten on buses and blown themselves up. So how did they get on the buses if that feature of apartheid were practiced? How would we know at first glance that someone is an Arab, unless the Arab wears a costume, such as kafiya or hijab, etc?? Then, one of my son's friends was on a bus when an Arab mass murder bomber got on at the French Hill intersection. An Arab passenger on his way to work was blown up and killed, along with six Jews. My son's friend was sitting in the back and only suffered shock from being thrown back, as well as some psychological trauma, which remains with him to this day. This young man's father was also in a bombing years ago in Jerusalem but survived.
I know of the Khoury case mentioned above. Khoury's grandfather was murdered in a bombing in Zion Square in downtown Jerusalem more than 30 years ago. One of our family friends was trained as a medic in the Israeli army. He lives on HaHayil St and came out to help young Khoury. I forgot to ask him whether he knew that the boy was an Arab at the time he was trying to save him.
In fact, there have been several cases where Arab terrorists have attacked fellow Arabs thinking that they were Jews. In one case in early 1999, when Netanyahu was prime minister, an Arab got up in the morning in a village northeast of Jerusalem and came into the city to murder a Jew [as he later admitted to the police]. The first Jew whom he saw that he thought he could get away with murdering [that is, without being caught] was a young woman. He stabbed her to death. It later turned out that she was an Arab. In his remorse for killing a fellow Arab, he turned himself in to Israeli police. Whereas Khoury was a Christian, this young woman was a Muslim. She was quite accomplished and had a doctoral degree in pubic health from an American univ. She had gotten out of her car near the office of a UN agency where she was working in the public health field for the Arabs' benefit when she was stabbed.
Another feature of South African apartheid was a ban on Blacks sitting together with Whites in restaurants. About 12 or 13 years ago, after the Oslo disaster, an Arab from the Jerusalem area thought that he would be modern and take his wife out to dinner at a restaurant. He took her to a Jewish restaurant on Nahalat Shiv`ah street. Arab terrorists armed with rifles, at that time, not bombs, came and started shooting at the restaurant patrons sitting outdoors at restaurant tables. This Arab husband was murdered, although his wife survived.

In another case, early this year in France, a young Jew, Ilan Halimi, was kidnapped, held for ransom, tortured for weeks by Muslims, and left for dead. Halimi was not pale-skinned, by the way. He was somewhat swarthy in fact. Of course, his kidnappers knew he was Jewish and planned the kidnapping in order to extort money from "rich Jews." Halimi's family could not pay the ransom demanded. He probably would have been murdered in any case.
Now BL labors under a whole series of misconceptions. Among them are the skin colors of Jews and Arabs, the meaning of apartheid, Carter's purposes in entitling his book as he did, the purposes of the Hamas, etc. We should really conclude that sanity and factual information are in short supply in Europe these days, and that the Euro media supply misinformation in abundance about Israel to their hapless Euro clientele.

His understanding of Islam's impact on human development is evidently based solely on the ARAB experience in which Islam eventually turned tribal marauders (i.e., Arabs) into conquerers and then into emperors ruling cities (cities, of course, that others had built).

What a surprise to find out that Omar is myopic and knows only one narrow and distorted side of the story, yet proclaims it confidently!

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

Sorry, "marauding tribes" no less!

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

What's funny in Omar's post - (and if I were to look hard enough I'm sure I'd find funny admissions like these coming from him more often) - is when he describes Israel's founding as:

"Thus negating 13 (thirteen) centuries of human progress which witnessed the progress of human kind from the era of marauding tribes to the era of settled communities."

His count of 13 centuries puts the establishment of settled communities at around the time of the Islamic conquests. No accident, I would suppose, in his own mind. But to others who seem to recall history teaching us of the establishment of settled communities going back millenia earlier, Omar's throwback to thinking human societies consisted of nothing but "tribes" until Muhammad came along is a self-centered - to the point of comical - perspective.

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

Omar, you ignorant person, if you hd only read my posting carefully you would have seen my point that Israel was created peacefully and legally by a U.N. Declaration. That UN Declaration was then violated by the ARAB states who began war and invasion. SINCE YOU ARE DEFINING WAR AS IPSO FACTO A DESPICABLY RETROGRADE ACT, THEN THAT"S THE RETROGRADE ACT THAT GOES BACK 1300 YEARS, OMAR. (I said this briefly, but you can't read, so it's not surprising that you missed it.)

Now, as it happened, the Jews won that war, against very great odds. That's what you can't forgive, but don't call the Israelis retrograde when the war came from the Arab side. THEY, and no one else, took the issue to the seventh century.

I'll tell you what, Omar: if you give up Muslim claims to rule Morroco, and Egypt (both conquered by force), AND Jerusalem (the latter conquered by force in the 630s), and give up Islam as the state religion of Pakistan (conquered by force)--give up those areas of Muslim rule based on conquest to begin with-- and we can begin to talk about the Israeli situation.

I'm waiting.

There are mosques in Israel--no Jew can enter Saudi Arabia, let alone set up a congregation (Christians can't set up congregations). And it's the Jews who are attacked as intolerant. WHAT HYPOCRISY.

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

Just more bs from Omar. He can't see Muslim hypocrisy when it is presented to him.

Merry Christmas.

art eckstein -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

First of all, evidence--true facts and events--is NOT "gossip"! Stop it. Is this how you avoid specific facts? These are facts we have presented you with.

And it is not my evidence that is at fault here in the tragedy of the murder of George Khoury--it is your incorrect speculations, based on nothing except bottomless ill-will towards Israel and a desperate attempt to save the actions of the Palestinians, which were disgraceful.

You need to confront in your own mine what Khoury's death means. These Palestinian terrorists were looking to kill Jews--ANY Jews. In the end they killed an Arab instead, and by mistake, and Fatah apologized for killing not someone who was simply out jogging in an upscale neighborhood, but simply for killing an Arab not a Jews.

Now Barrie, if I go into downtown D.C. and I've got a submachine gun, and I go into a bar in the ghetto, and open up my submachine gun on the people in the bar because they are black and I want to kill blacks--and ANY blacks will do--what would you call me? A racist.

That's what Palestinians do all the time, Barry. They've been doing it since 1970, and increasingly viciously. What does that make them, then?

It is the Palestinians, not the Israelis, who are racists.

As for the Hamas declarations, the Hamas government APPLAUDS THE SUICIDE BOMBING OF ISRAELI CIVILIANS. (Arafat's govt had the decency or hypocrisy to deplore it in public even when they were organizing such operations). That means you not only have the genocidal statements of Hamas, you have them operating as a government in a genocidal manner.

2 + 2 equals 4, except for those who prefer to take their tea with Neville Chamberlain and blame the Czechs.

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

Don't you think you should inform the Pope of this? He could probably do with a real Christmas Day eye-opener to make the day even more memorable.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/25/2006

YA, I agree that charging Israel with apartheid is Carter's way of expressing hatred of Jews. By the way, are you aware that Carter endorsed "ethnic purity" during the 1976 primary election campaign? See, for example, Julia Gorin's article on Carter. The charge is intended to be a smear at best.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/25/2006

I'd like to add one very recent event demonstrating Bat Ye'or's Eurabia theory, although I see Eurabia as only a partial explanation of European [EU] behavior. The EU held a pre-Christmas summit meeting in Brussels. Their closing declaration condemned Israel, and praised the efforts to form a palestinian authority unity govt, while overlooking the nascent civil war in the PA zones. They also failed to condemn Iran for violating the Nuclear Non-Prolif treaty [which Iran signed], except for some mild criticism, while offering Iran nuclear goodies if they would only be good boys in Teheran. The EU leaders are foolish and fatuous, if not mad. Only Israel was really attacked, and unjustly.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/25/2006

You don't have to cut and paste, even if it makes you feel important, a link will be enough.
The Jews are a nation and as all the nations they have the full political spectrum from the extreme left to the extreme right (and of course with all the middle components). The Jews are as divided and as united as all the other nations, no more no less. The Christmas story proves it, being the result of the quarrels and wars between the Jews. The "revelation" Saul of Tars had on his road to Damascus was a pay back to the Jewish religious establishment who didn't consider him important enough. The stories of the four evangelists are written by people who didn't witness a crucifixion and also didn't know anyone who witnessed one. The Roman law didn't allow taking the dead body off the cross, it had to remain on the cross as a symbol of the Roman might, till the disintegration of the flesh. Also the nails driven through the palms represent a false picture of the crucifixion because they can't sustain the weight of the body, all the archaeological data show that the nails were driven through the forearms of the crucified. Sorry for the cruel images but how can we base the "redeeming of the world" on such a monumental falsehood? We don't know much about the way the old testament has been concocted (we know some of the parts left out but not much about when and how), but about the new testament concoction we have historic proof about when and how.
This Lambert bigot invokes Christmas, to blame the Jews again, which is very normal for a bigot.
Barrie boy, the same Arendt equated communism and nazism and the present common point of these ideological extremes is hating Jews and you, of course, are a full subscriber to this hate.
What a joke, receive the psychopathic "son of god" and all your sins will be forgiven?! Personally I like all the sins of Christmas (and Easter), all this eating and drinking and thank nature my metabolism is very good and I can do quite a lot of them with my Christian friends.
See you in hell, Barrie boy!

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

But again, you fail to refute by evidence. And, you fail to refute my evidence that the HAMAS favors the ethnic cleansing of Jews. And note: that evidence is in the paper of record, namely, The New York Times. And, it is quotes of the leaders - now deceased - of the HAMAS.

Address the specific evidence directly. It was as clear as any political program is likely to be stated.

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

Nowhere do you explain remotely the relevance of views expressed prior to Israel's existence to those today. And, Arendt, evidently, changed her mind about the issues you raise, standing with Israel most especially at the point that Europeans tended to distance themselves on Israel, namely, with reference to the Six Day War.

N. Friedman -
12/25/2006

Barrie,

If a person believes in the classical Islamic theological position - which is held by both Sunni and Shi'a -, that person has to believe in spreading the Muslim rule by, if necessary, violence. That was my main point and the 90 - 95% number was directed to the fact that the vast majority of Muslims in the world are believers.

Now, that does not mean that most Muslims are violent. That does not mean that most Muslims believe in individual Jihad. It does mean that the noted number of Muslims, by implication, believe that spreading the House of Islam is their communal duty.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/25/2006

Omar, do you think Saudi Arabia, for instance, should be exempt from criticism for its very apartheid-like [dhimma enforcing] social system?

As for Jews being a chosen people, I don't take that position. But the last time that I read the Qur'an, the Qur'an did take that position. Consider Qur'an 5:12 [Allah made a covenant with the Sons of Israel], 5:20-22 [Allah gave to the people of Moses what he did not give to any other people], and other verses, such as: Allah settled the Jews in a blessed land [some translations differ], etc etc. So go argue with the Qur'an, not with Mr Eckstein.

E. Simon -
12/25/2006

Barrie, if you cannot tell the difference between being a citizen of one state (i.e. an Israeli Arab, Jew, Druze, etc.), and being a citizen - not of that state - but of a different and separate polity (i.e. a Palestinian governed by the Palestinian National Authority), then I am not sure how to spell out the difference to you. Palestinian Arabs living in the West Bank or Gaza Strip actually have their own government: The Palestinian National Authority. Perhaps you were not aware of this. And The Palestinian National Authority and Israel are actually - get this, now - TWO DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS. JUST LIKE FRANCE AND GERMANY ARE TWO DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS. But perhaps you were not cognizant of that fact, either. It is no less just to assert that they are or should ideally be seen as the primary responsibility of that government, just as a citizen of France is primarily the responsibility of the French government, and not of the German government. Israel may have responsibilities to Palestinians in the West Bank as long as it remains in military occupation over them, but so does the PNA, and increasingly so in anticipation and evidence of Israel's continued abandonment of that occupation.

I am not sure if this was written clearly enough for you to understand the point you missed earlier, but I apologize. Sometimes this comes down, once again, to having a mind complex enough to grasp the finer details of complex ideas. Complicated sentences are not meant to confuse you, and perhaps there is a simpler way to write about complicated ideas. But sometimes the reader just needs to be willing to learn about complicated ideas in the first place - such as learning both sides of a given argument and COMPREHENDING THAT DIFFERENT GOVERNMENTS OFTEN REPRESENT, AND ARE PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR, DIFFERENT GROUPS OF PEOPLE.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/25/2006

Barrie, the British mandatory authorities left behind a law allowing administrative detention. This law is sometimes used by Israel. But I would remind you that Arabs concerned with the civil rights of their own people, such Bassam Eid, find that the "palestinian authority" uses torture considerably. Do you know how many Arab journalists and publishers, real estate dealers [murdered for allegedly selling land to Jews], and just plain dissidents have been jailed and/or tortured or even murdered by the PA?

Elliott Aron Green -
12/25/2006

BL,
Jerusalem was considered predominantly Arab by whom?
Consult Yehoshua ben-Arieh's book, Jerusalem in the Nineteenth Century. He surveys several censuses and population estimates for the whole 19th century, especially the 2nd half of the century. He finds that the Jewish and non-Jewish populations reached parity in 1870. Bear in mind that Ottoman censuses counted only males and Ottoman subjects. Many Jews were not Ottoman subjects. Anyhow, Nu`aman al-Qasatli, an Arab, estimated a Jewish majority in the city as of 1874. Al-Qasatli worked for the Palestine Exploration Fund. See him cited in the 2 vol. work, Ottoman Jerusalem [eds. Auld & Hillenbrand], in an article by another Arab, Abdul-Karem Rafeq. This work was partly subsidized by Rafiq al-Hariri and endorsed by your very own, dear Princeling of Wales and Ears of Elephant, Charley of the Two Wives.
Karl Marx's figures for Jerusalem's population are identical to Cesar Famin's figures of 1853, and taken from Famin's book. Marx' relevant article appeared in the New York Tribune, 15 April 1854. Unfortunately, Prof Ben-Arieh seems to have missed Marx's article and Famin's book, as well as a book by Gerardy Santine of 1860, although he refers to a half-dozen or more censuses and population estimates.

Ben-Arieh's book is indispensable in any case. If the British figures that you cite are at all genuine, then they refer to the whole Jerusalem region, not just to the city itself. Let me remind you that British officials in Jerusalem at that time, Colonel Waters-Taylor, Ernest Richmond, Ronald Storrs, etc., encouraged Arabs to drive Jews out, especially out of the Old City. Colonel Richard Meinertzhagen reported [see his Middle East Diary, inter alia] that Waters-Taylor specifically encouraged Haj Amin el-Husseini to make a pogrom against Jews in Jerusalem in April 1920. Five Jews were murdered in the Old City.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/25/2006

Undearest BL,
Ma`aleh Adumim has piped in water from Israel's integrated, country-wide water supply system. So I don't think Peter will need bottles in Ma`aleh Adumim. Your remark about his friends begrudging him water does seem bizarre.
Water is not in short-supply in Ma`aleh Adumim, but it's advisable to take water along when you're traveling on hot and dry days or when camping out or picnicking, especially in the desert.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/25/2006

N, This character is in denial big time. No matter what argument anyone makes to counter him, he calls it "fluff." In fact, he's short on specifics but long on calling names. He doesn't repond to facts that contradict his claims. One of your posts the other day was an excellent refutation of his asininities, as I said then. It was factual, logical, and addressed the significant issues. Yet he did not respond to the points made, rather he kept up claiming his righteousness and that of the PLO and the whole gang/s/ around them, although I am perplexed as to whether he supports the Fatah gang or the Hamas gang who do not seem to be getting along very well together lately. He told us to examine our "truths." He ought examine his own "truths." Of course, we don't accept the "apartheid" libel. Carter himself disavowed the libel, except for the "West Bank." It's a lie regarding the "West Bank" too. Yet, BL is like a broken record. Always going around in the same groove, making the same groundless accusations, almost always ignoring refutations. Always parading his own self-righteousness and that of HMG.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

First, that's the trouble with gossip. It lends itself to speculation and the generation of absurd hypotheses. So don't try to pass gossip off as argument in future.

Second, if N offers "convincing" evidence of a statement which, on a literal reading, doesn't actually say what he claims it says, and then he argues that, if it is interpreted correctly (ie, figuratively by N) it then can be made to appear to say what he claims it says..... Gnosis, or what? Certainly, in isolation, neither strong nor meaningful evidence of the claim, I respectfully suggest.

Barrie Lambert -
12/25/2006

Here’ s a longish extract from a review by the excellent Corey Robin of a selection of books by and about Hannah Arendt in the January 4 2007 edition of the London Review of Books. It is highly instructive and will bear repeated reading and deep and considered reflection by many of the contributors to this debate. Our need to renew our understanding of the continuing and acute relevance of Arendt’s analysis of Zionism has never been greater, and the world, for good or ill, is slowly adopting her, critique of Zionism, almost by default, as we bear witness to the unrelenting and brutal expression of Israeli policy as it flickers across our television screens.

“Though Arendt had a long, often sympathetic involvement in Zionist politics, she was wary of the project almost from the start. ‘I find this territorial experiment increasingly problematic,’ she wrote in a 1940 letter, just one of the fascinating documents gathered by Jerome Kohn and Ron Feldman in their splendid collection of Arendt’s Jewish writings, many of which have been translated for the first time. In 1948, she confessed to her complete ‘opposition to present Zionist politics’. Her opposition was rooted in three concerns: the correspondence she saw between Zionism and Fascism, the Zionists’ dependence on imperialism, and her growing awareness of what she called ‘the Arab question’.

“Of all the co-optations of Arendt for contemporary political purposes, none is more outrageous than the parallel, drawn by Power and others, between Palestinian militants and the Nazis. Arendt firmly rejected that analogy (in a 1948 letter to the Jewish Frontier), and few of the protagonists in the struggle over Palestine so reminded her of the Nazis as the Zionists themselves, particularly those of the Revisionist tendency, whose influence Arendt was among the first to notice.

“From its inception, Arendt argued, Zionism had exhibited some of the nastier features of European nationalism. Drawing ‘from German sources’, she wrote in 1946, Herzl presumed that the Jews constituted neither a religion nor a people but an ‘organic national body’ or race that could one day be housed ‘inside the closed walls of a biological entity’ or state. With its insistence on the eternal struggle between the Jews and their enemies, she wrote in the 1930s, the Zionist worldview seemed ‘to conform perfectly’ to that of ‘the National Socialists’. Both ideas, she added in 1944, ‘had a definite tendency towards what later were known as Revisionist attitudes’.

“Initially a minor current, according to Arendt, Revisionism poured into the Zionist mainstream in the 1940s. The Revisionists knew what they wanted and used guns to get it. Far from denying them legitimacy, their violent audacity provoked only token disapproval from mainstream Zionists, who secretly or unwittingly supported their initiative. Revisionist violence spoke to a new dispensation among the Jews, which Arendt described in ‘The Jewish State’. After centuries of settling for ‘survival at any price’, the Jews now insisted on ‘dignity at any price’. Though Arendt appreciated the shift, she also detected a secret death wish in the spirit of machismo: ‘Behind this spurious optimism lurks a despair of everything and a genuine readiness for suicide.’ Many Zionists, she claimed two years later, would rather go down with the ship than compromise, fearing that compromise would send them back to the humiliating days of silent suffering in Europe.

“In 1948, the leader of Herut, Israel’s Revisionist party, travelled to America. Arendt drafted a letter of protest to the New York Times, which was signed by Einstein, Sidney Hook and others. Herut was ‘no ordinary political party’, she wrote. It was ‘closely akin in its organisation, methods, political philosophy and social appeal to the Nazi and Fascist parties’. It used ‘terrorism’, and its goal was a ‘Führer state’ based on ‘ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism and racial superiority’. The letter also decried those ‘Americans of national repute’ who ‘have lent their names to welcome’ the Herut leader, giving ‘the impression that a large segment of America supports Fascist elements in Israel’. The leader of Herut was Menachem Begin.

“The second failing of Zionism, according to Arendt, was that its leaders looked to the ‘great powers’ for support rather than to their future neighbours. Her disagreement here was both moral – ‘by taking advantage of imperialistic interests’, she wrote in 1944, the Zionists had collaborated ‘with the most evil forces of our time’ – and strategic. At the very moment that imperialism was being challenged throughout the world, Zionism had attached itself to a universally maligned form. ‘Only folly could dictate a policy that trusts distant imperial power for protection, while alienating the goodwill of neighbours,’ she wrote. In a 1950 essay, she declared that Zionists simply ignored or failed to understand ‘the awakening of colonial peoples and the new nationalist solidarity in the Arab world from Iraq to French Morocco’. Self-styled realists, they were profoundly unrealistic. They ‘mistook decisions of great powers for the ultimate realities’, she wrote in 1948, when ‘the only permanent reality in the whole constellation was the presence of Arabs in Palestine.’

“Arendt did allow for one imperial future, however. ‘The significance of the Near East for Britain and America,’ Arendt wrote in a 1944 article entitled ‘USA – Oil – Palestine’, ‘can be expressed nowadays in a single word: oil.’ With America’s reserves dwindling, control over the world’s oil supply would ‘become one of the most important factors in postwar politics’. After the war, America would control roughly half the world’s shipping, and ‘that fact alone will force American foreign policy to secure its own oil hubs.’ Because of Europe’s reliance on Arab oil, she added, ‘America’s future influence on intra-European matters will depend to a large extent’ on its control over an intended pipeline in the Middle East. Though she hoped that America would not pursue an imperial policy, she had no doubt that oil would be a key factor in its deliberations. And with Israel responsible for the ‘caretaking of American interests’ in the Middle East, she wrote in ‘Zionism Reconsidered’, ‘the famous dictum of Justice Brandeis would indeed come true: you would have to be a Zionist in order to be a perfect American patriot.’

“While Arendt had worried about Zionism’s darker tendencies and imperial dalliances from the beginning, her awareness of the Arab question came slowly. By 1944, however, she had come to see it as the ‘most important’ challenge. Without ‘Arab-Jewish co-operation,’ she wrote in 1948, ‘the whole Jewish venture in Palestine is doomed.’ Zionism left the Palestinians with no options other than emigration or ‘transfer’, which could be accomplished only using Fascist methods, or second-class status in the land of their birth. This last option, she remarked in 1943, assumed ‘that tomorrow’s majority will concede minority rights to today’s majority, which indeed would be something brand new in the history of nation-states’. In the mid-1940s, she warned that the Arabs would soon ‘turn against the Jews as the Slovaks turned against the Czechs in Czechoslovakia, and the Croats against the Serbs in Yugoslavia’. ‘In the long run,’ she added, ‘there is hardly any course imaginable that would be more dangerous.’”

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

1. Barry, it is intellectually disgraceful for you to spin more and more grotesque and absurd hypotheses about the murder of this Arab Israeli young man without the slightest evidence on your side and all of it in the service of trying to make the Palestinian terrorists look good and Israel somehow look bad. You know literally NOTHING of the facts of the case, but what your grotesque "alternative hypotheses" above do reveal is just how brutally bigotted, biased and irresponsible you are. THAT is there importance to me, I'm sorry to say.

The young man wasn't "passing" as a Jew, as if this were some southern American movie from the 1950s. He wasn't killed because resentful Palestinians thought he was "aping his upscale Jewish peers" (talk about BLAMING THE VICTIM!! YOU OUGHT TO BE ASHAMED OF YOURSELF.) He was killed because Jews and Palestinians look quite alike and the murderer wanted to kill any Jew, and he mistook this lad for a Jew (= RACISM; = GENOCIDE. GET IT NOW??). Fatah later officially apologized for killing him--they thought he was a Jew.

Details: Well, I know you hate actual FACTS ("gossip"), but here you are:

March 21, 2004
Another Poignant Tragedy.

The Murder of George Khoury By Fatah

Israel's Foreign Ministry writes that "The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs
Brigade, which claimed responsibility for the attack on George Khoury, later published an
apology." without noting that the apology wasn't for murdering an Israeli jogging in French Hill but instead an apology for murdering an Arab instead of a Jew.

George Khoury

Mar 19, 2004 - George Khoury, 20, a Christian Arab and the son of well-known veteran attorney Elias Khoury of Beit Hanina, was shot to death from a vehicle while jogging in the north Jerusalem neighborhood of French Hill.
The Fatah Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, which claimed responsibility for the
attack, later published an apology.

George Khoury, a second year student at the nearby Hebrew University, had taken his mother's car and driven two kilometers from his family home for
his weekly Friday night jog in French Hill. At about 7:20 p.m., as he ran on Rehov Hahayil, he was gunned down by terrorists who opened fire from their
passing car. The attackers then sped away via the adjacent Arab neighborhood of Isawiya, in the direction of Ramallah.

George, the middle son in the Khoury family, was a graduate of the Anglican International School in Jerusalem. He was active in sports and played the piano, representing his school in international music competitions. Like his
father and grandfather, George tried to promote Jewish-Arab co-existence,
participating in interfaith dialogues in Germany and England. He was
studying economics and international relations at the Hebrew University and
planned to follow in his father's footsteps and become a lawyer. His cousin described him as both athletic and an intellectual, who loved books and films.

As far as your bs "apartheid Israel" goes, NOTE PLEASE IF YOU CAN ABSORB INFORMATION, that George Khoury, an Isareli Arab, was attending HEBREW UNIVERSITY.

Barrie, your no. 103621 at 9:06 p.m. is the most disgraceful intellectual performance on your part yet.

2. Your response to the significant evidence presented by N.F. is simply "I'm not convinced." You don't say why, and you don't offer not the slightest counter-argument or evidence. That is intellectually completely unsound. Or are you simply trying out for a place on the O.J. jury?

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

NO NO, Barrie, are you suffering from attention deficit syndrome? The current subject on this thread is the issue raised by N.F. (no. 103611 above, at 6:54 p.m.) about general Muslim support of violence--WHICH YOU DENIED and sarcastically dismissed (no. 103613 at 7:11 p.m.).

This evidence goes a long way towards refuting you, you must accept that general Muslim support for violence to favor Islam is extraordinarily widespread; N.F. is far more correct than you are.

Those are the FACTS, these are matters of fact, and of course there are policy implications for Britain and for the entire West. Policy implications which you, sitting there in the garden drinking your tea with Neville Chamberlain, prefer not to think about. "Let's condemn those simply awful Czechs instead, Neville!"

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

Yes, Art, but what do these poll results have to do with apartheid in Israel? Are you using them to justify Israel's treatment of the Palestinians and of its own Arab minority which constitutes 20% of the population?

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

Two in one again, First E:

"One thing you would find is that Arabs in Jerusalem prefer the rights they're more likely to avail themselves under Israeli rule than under Palestinian misrule." FINE, SO WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE? I'M SURE THERE MUST LOTS OF POLLS, FOCUS GROUP RESULTS AVAILABLE, ETC, SO WHAT DO THEY SAY?

"But continue blurring the distinction between being a citizen of a state and being an inhabitant of an authoritarian proto-state that can't manage to convince its neighbors of any security advantage to be gained by relinquishing its military occupation of them. It's the kind of mental fuzziness that keeps you happily ill-informed, just the way Gran and the Yuletide drinks prefer you." YOU MAY WELL BE RIGHT, BUT TRY AS I MIGHT, I CANNOT MAY HEAD NOR TAIL OF YOUR FIRST SENTENCE, INHABITANT, CITIZEN, INHABITANT BUT NON-CITIZEN? IS IT AN APOLOGIA FOR VICIOUS ISRAEL'S ATTACKS ON GAZA THE WEST BANK AND THE LEBANON AT WILL, OR WHAT? PERHAPS YOUR PLAYING MIND GAMES AND HOPING I WILL BLAME IT ON THE MENTAL FUZZINESS YOU DIAGNOSE. BUT, NOTHING SO SUBTLE I EXPECT. I THINK IT IS JUST REALLY BAD, ILL CRAFTED WRITING.

And now Art:

"Barrie,

"If Israel is an apartheid state why was that Arab Israeli living in an upscale neighborhood in Jerusalem, and jogging peacefully through it, when he was murdered by a Palestinian racist terrorist for whom any Jew--or even anyone who LOOKED like a Jew--would due for death? OBVIOUSLY, IDON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HPWEVER, I'LL OFFER SOME HYPOTHESES. MAYBE TO ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES HE WAS PASSING FOR JEW, RATHER AS LIGHT SKINNED AMERICAN BLACKS WOULD PASS FOR WHITE, LIVING THE UPSCALE LIFESTYLE IN HIS UPSCALE NEIGHBOURHOOD. IT OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T END WELL FOR HIM, BUT WAS HE KILLED BY A PALESTINIAN WHO THOUGHT HIM JEWISH, OR KILLED BECAUSE OF RESENTMENT FELT AGAINST HIM FOR APING HIS UPSCALE JEWISH PEERS, OR MAYBE HE WAS KILLED BY A LOWER CLASS JEW WHO RESENTED AN ARAB LIVING AN UPSCALE JEWISH LIFESTYLE IN HIS UPSCALE NEIGHBOURHOOD. ALTERNATIVELY HE MAY HAVE OFFENDED SOMEONE BY SIMPLY WEARING THE WRONG PAIR OF TRAINERS WHEN HE JOGGED; STRANGER THINGS HAVE HAPPENED. BUT YOUR EXAMPLE AND "POINT" ARE PRECISELY WHAT I UNDERSTAND TO BE GOSSIP.

N.F. has now posted the Hamas material on genocide at least FOUR TIMES and has gotten NO response from you. Having stated that you doubted that Hamas had such a position, you have simply ignored the evidence that it does.

I suppose once again EVIDENCE to you is "irrelevant" or "details". I FOUND WHAT I THINK MIGHT BE THE POST EARLIER BUT THE "EVIDENCE" N OFFERS DOESN'T SEEM TO ME TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS POSITION THAT HAMAS' POLICY IS GENOCIDAL, AND N HIMSELF HAD TO APPLY HIS OWN SPIN ON IT TO TRY TO GET THE INFORMATION HE OFFERED TO BEAR THE WEIGHT OF HIS CONSTRUCTION, WHICH I DO NOT THINK IT DID. HOWEVER, I PLAN TO SPEND THE NEXT FEW WEEKS STUDYING, AMONGST OTHER THINGS, HAMAS'POLICY POSITIONS, AND ALSO THOSE OF HEZBOLLAH, SO I MIGHT HAVE A CLEARER IDEA IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS TIME.

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

The poll results below ALSO permit an inference on widespread Muslim support for violence, Barrie:

From the Pew Global Poll, July 2005:

Asked how much confidence they had in bin Laden doing "the right thing regarding world affairs," only 10 percent of respondents in Indonesia, 12 percent in Pakistan and 18 percent in Jordan responded "none."

In Morocco the figure was 40, in Turkey 73 and in Lebanon 78.

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

If Israel is an apartheid state why was that Arab Israeli living in an upscale neighborhood in Jerusalem, and jogging peacefully through it, when he was murdered by a Palestinian racist terrorist for whom any Jew--or even anyone who LOOKED like a Jew--would due for death?

N.F. has now posted the Hamas material on genocide at least FOUR TIMES and has gotten NO response from you. Having stated that you doubted that Hamas had such a position, you have simply ignored the evidence that it does.

I suppose once again EVIDENCE to you is "irrelevant" or "details".

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

One thing you would find is that Arabs in Jerusalem prefer the rights they're more likely to avail themselves under Israeli rule than under Palestinian misrule.

But continue blurring the distinction between being a citizen of a state and being an inhabitant of an authoritarian proto-state that can't manage to convince its neighbors of any security advantage to be gained by relinquishing its military occupation of them. It's the kind of mental fuzziness that keeps you happily ill-informed, just the way Gran and the Yuletide drinks prefer you.

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

Barrie, I think the following poll, which does not ask N.F.'s question but is on a related topic should cause you deep concern, but I have no doubt you will simply blow it off:

Given the poll results HERE, one can legitimately wonder what the result of a poll question such as "The spread of Islam by conquest in the past was a good thing" would have been.

From CBS News, August 14, 2006:

Many British Muslims Put Islam First

Survey Shows Many Are More Loyal To Fellow Muslims Outside U

Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law.

The recent homegrown plot in Britain to blow up transatlantic flights will intensify the fear that the country's 1.6 million Muslims are rejecting political tolerance and free speech for a violent, radicalized version of Islam. There is a real concern that British Muslims do pose a threat to that country and its traditional values. So how prevalent are such radical views among British Muslims?

Some answers are provided by the most comprehensive survey to date of Muslim opinion in Britain. The results from NOP Research, broadcast by Channel 4-TV on August 7, are startling.

Forty-five percent say 9/11 was a conspiracy by the American and Israeli governments. This figure is more than twice as high as those who say it was not a conspiracy.

Tragically, almost one in four British Muslims believe that last year's 7/7 attacks on London civilians were justified because of British support for the U.S.-led war on terror.

When asked, "Is Britain my country or their country?" only one in four say it is.

Thirty percent of British Muslims would prefer to live under Sharia (Islamic religious) law than under British law. According to the report, "Half of those who express a preference for living under Sharia law say that, given the choice, they would move to a country governed by those laws."

Twenty-eight percent hope for the U.K. one day to become a fundamentalist Islamic state.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

To the extent that Barrie essentially does Omar's bidding, blindness would work in his subservient favor.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

I don't know what the "preference" of the State of Israel is regarding the rights of Palestinians, Barrie. But it does have an obligation first and foremost to the rights of its own citizens to be defended from suicidal terrorists. Given that priority - as opposed to "preference" - it would certainly be preferable for the Palestinian National Authority to take over in the department of defending the rights of Palestinians, but their record on arresting and imprisoning makes them not a very pleasant alternative - in the minds of many Palestinians. Even though adherence to better treatment standards should be their very priority, one would think.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

But N, President Carter is not a scholar, he is an experienced politician attempting to influence the resolution of a complex of complex problems which are bounded by fear, hatred and ditrust, a brutal history of occupation, the use of suicide bombings and the techniques of asymetric warfare by the occupied, and a whole series of contentious histories, the fruits of which are more likely to exacerbate tensions rather than help resolve difficulties through historical disputation.

My current impression of his book - which I've not yet read, but I have had the advantage of a briefing on its arguments and conclusions - is that it is very much a "this is the future peace you wish, these are the things which may help achieve it". I'm hoping that, if it's not im my stocking tomorrow, I will be able to pick it up sometime next week, and then I can really see what the fuss has really been about.

But none of the alters the argument that Israel is an apartheid state in intent and to all practical effects. I know, why not poll some Israeli arabs and some Palestinians and see what they think?

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

So "90 to 95% of Muslims are likely united", so Shia and Sunni, men, women and children are going to jump out fully armed, out of CHOICE and conquer - what? where? - London, Bradford, Nashville, Paris, Berlin, Brussels, Jerusalem... where?

N, is commonsense never brought into play when you have an attack of spurious numbers so ludicrous they leave me favourably inclined towards the notion that the introduction of the straight jacket may well be the new big thing in Palestinian/Israeli studies?

Oh, it's O0.06 December 25 already here, so merry Chrismas to one and all.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

The issue with Carter is that he wanted to increase sales of his book by using the most contentious title he could come up with. There was nothing deep as his book, according to all reviews I have seen, is not a serious book. It is, rather, polemic, not scholarly and not accurate.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

The Monolithic structure argument is a bogus apologia. On the issue of spreading Islam by, if necessary, violence, 90 to 95% of Muslims are likely united.

And, the conquests were mostly all wars of CHOICE, not of self-defense. And, most Muslims historically have seen the spread of Islam by violence as perfectly fine - akin to Europeans bringing civilization to barbarians but notably more brutal, as the conquests were largely driven by religion.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

Earlier on in this debate, I suggested we might consider translating the title as "Palestine: Peace or Separation" to remove the specific South African implications of the term apartheid which muddy the water and the debate. My understanding is that Carter's suggestion is best understood not as a recantation of any of his themes and conclusions, but rather a clarification of the specific meaning of the term apartheid as i suggested above.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

"This makes their "moral outrage" over Israel all the more hypocritical." Well, possibly - but, barely - if you choose to make the, quite deranged assumption that Islam is a monolithic structure. "...Muslims accept that their ferocious conquests are unproblematical, and that the RIGHT of Muslim states to control the areas they have conquered from others is NEVER to be questioned..." Well, how does that apply to Iraq's claim to Kuwait, for instance, which preceded the first Persian Gulf War and which any future government will be ill advised to ignore, Art?

And isn't the right not to question the control of areas Muslim states have conquered in the past a function of both history, diplomatic recognition and the Westphalian Peace and it's practical application through the decisions of the United Nations?

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

Yes, they do not want people even to read Bat Ye'or's book. Yet it contains important facts. I myself am not quite as pessimistic yet as she is, because I'm struck with the attitude of my European friends. Nevertheless, an important book.

But of course, it's not so much books such as Bat Yeor's as the savage murder of Theo Van Gogh, the July bombings in London, the March bombings in Madrid, the Autumn Riots in Paris, Honor Killings of women in Berlin, the Cartoon Jihad--i.e., hideous, really hideous, FACTS, not books (Barrie Lambert--ever hear of any of these facts?)--that have (perhaps) begun to open people's eyes to the threat.

Barrie Lambert--the book is called "Eurabia", by Bat Ye'or, and you really ought to read it; it'll open your eyes. Not that you have the intellectual honesty or breadth to do so, of course.

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

That's right, N.F.

Among the other Muslim crimes was murdering thousands of peaceful Bhuddist priests, and burning hundreds of Bhuddist temples to the ground.

But as I said, the main point here is that Muslims accept that their ferocious conquests are unproblematical, and that the RIGHT of Muslim states to control the areas they have conquered from others is NEVER to be questioned. This makes their "moral outrage" over Israel all the more hypocritical.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

Same old nonsense I see Elliott, but of course you do love two Ts.: "By the way, Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since 1853, according to French historian and diplomat Cesar Famin in Histoire de la rivalite et du protectorat des Eglises chretiennes en Orient [Paris 1853].
Barrie, do try to question your own "truths"". I do, but I get much more interesting answers when I question yours.

This is what I posted on this matter in response to a previous fit of nonsense by you:

Re: Both sides should leave ancient history out of it (#101607)
by Barrie Lambert on November 19, 2006 at 1:16 PM

"In 185O, when its population was confined to the old city walls, and in 1878 and 1920, including its expansion beyond the old city walls, Jerusalem was considered to be a mixed town with a predominantly non-Jewish, that is, Arab population. In 1946, for which HMG compiled what are generally regarded to be accurate statistics, the Jerusalem demographic was 62% Palestinian and 38% Jewish. I am not aware of Famin’s work, although I should imagine it is as unreliable as Marx’s in this instance - unless entire Jewish populations were able to emerge and disappear in Jerusalem seemingly at will(or random intervals, perhaps) during the period 1850 to 1946."

Not the last word, perhaps, but at least it attempts to approximate the truth.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

It is called analysis and analogy. Such is crucial to understanding an event and placing it in context.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Art,

Thank you for your list of books and your comments. I shall write them down and plan to read some of them.

You have the correct person.

I am not expert enough on Europe to agree or disagree with Bat Ye'or. However, her book certainly does seem to be rather consistent with the events I have witnessed. I understand, from reading the nasty comment against her in some of the more leftist newspapers, that her book has been widely read among the elites in Europe. So, there must be something to her analysis as the papers that most clearly advance the Arab and Muslim agenda contain truly nasty comment about her and her book, as if they do not want people even to read it.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Art,

Barrie is categorically not able to even see the sins committed by Muslims, much less see critically. He takes an even more ideological line than Omar does. Barrie, in effect, has blinded himself.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

So what's all this stuff about Munich, the Grand Mufti, naughty Palestinians and the second Intifada, &c, &c, &c, if not a plea in mitigation, E?

And doesn't the Israeli state prefer to arrest, imprison and torture Palestinians without trial?

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

Dear N. F.:

I assume you're speaking about Bat Yeor, and her thesis, about "Eurabia." I think it is a serious thesis.

But almost every European I know, including two Frenchmen and an American living in France for the past 20 years, deny her view. No doubt Lambert would deny it too. Two of the first three above are people whose political judgment I respect. So things are dire, but not yet as dire as you paint them, and I think in the general population there's a backlash against appeasing the immigrant Muslims that is growing. Perhaps the Euro elites use Israel as a convenient whipping-boy to distract the mass of the population from throwing them out of power over their cowardly behavior--i.e., "multiculturalism"-- towards the Muslim immigrants who are destroying traditional European culture and liberal European society.

I think with Lambert we are also dealing with the vestige of Sixties "anti-imperialist" thought mixed with fear of the Jihadist agenda. But in any case he simply won't even acknowledge the existence of serious facts or logical argument.

I haven't read Gott and Gilbert's The Appeasers, but I've put it on my
Christmas shopping list now! What I have read is:

R.A.C. Parker, Chamberlain and Appeasement (1993) (to which I referred in my postings);

R. J. Q. Adams, British Politics and Foreign Policy in the Age of Appeasement (1993);

S. R. Rock, Appeasement in International Politics (2000: a general study of the phenomenon, in which Britain in 1936-39 is only one major example); and last but not least:

John Charmley, Chamberlain and the Lost Peace (1989), a book that presents the sort of Lambert line on Czechoslovakia. Chamley is a wierd combination of fascist and leftist: he thinks Churchill should've made a deal with Hitler in 1940, and that the U.S. unforgiveably cheated Britain in "the Grand Alliance." This is a perverse position in its own way, of course.

Art

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

The main thing here, Barrie, is that one cannot simply dismiss important facts or logical arguments as "irrelevant' to the subject at hand unless you explain why you think they are irrelevant. If you just dismiss them as "irrelevant" without doing that, then you must take responsibiity (a hard task for you) for the conclusion that in reality you simply don't WISH to address those facts or arguments because though they are true, and logical, they are simply unpalatable to your political position. Which means your poltiical position is built on sand, but you don't want it disturbed.

E. Simon is right: addressing the other side of an argument does not necessarily concede the alleged truth of it. But address it you must, or else people will conclude that though you claim to be an adult engaging in an adult conversation, in fact you are very childish.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Art,

The Muslim conquests in India compare in their brutality with among the very worst crimes the world has ever, ever known. Tens of millions of people were slaughtered - for being, of all things, pagans!!! The Nazis might have marveled at the slaughter, which was done over a very substantial period of time and up close and personal - i.e. with swords and the like. And, it was likely done with a seemingly good conscience as killing pagans is not illegal or immoral under Islamic law. Even the Nazis had to hide some of their worst crimes. The Muslim conquerors were rather proud of their accomplishment.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Mr. Simon,

Barrie is the new European man - which owes part of breeding to Mr. Chamberlain and the other appeasers -, totally subservient to the ascendant Islamic agenda to the extent that he dares not to criticize that agenda or even recognize it. In fact, the Islamic agenda has unconsciously become his agenda.

Such is what becomes of a person subject to European rags that pretend to be papers and other media but which really are the mouthpieces of European appeasement.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Very interesting.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Art,

Thank you for your very thoughtful response. Of particular interest to me, have you read Richard Gott and Martin Gilbert's book The Appeasers? I read it some time ago and found it rather illuminating. But, as I noted, my reading on WWII history is not what it might be - and the topic of WWII makes me positively ill to think about, much less read about -. Are there better sources to examine? Is the noted book highly regarded? Has more information come to light that adds to what they reveal?

A historian acquaintance of mine who is rather expert on Islamic history takes the view that we are way beyond Munich, in a sense that has special meaning in Islamic history and theology. Rather, she see Europe more and more signing onto to the role of becoming and, to some extent, already being a dhimmi colony.

Her view is that, for Europe, the issue is less one of being conquered in any traditional sense but, instead, one of becoming and being subservient to demands from Arab Muslim states and the restless Muslim populations within Europe that are being exploited by Jihadists and by, according to her scholarship, some of the Arab Muslim states that back the Jihadist agenda. She blames, in large measure, the Euro-Arab Dialogue but mostly France for, in effect, destroying European independence, which she believes is basically beyond assistance. Her views are found, stated by religion scholar Richard Rubinstein, in the Reform Judaism Magazine article I previously noted.

She takes the matter further than Rubinstein, noting in great detail the changes in how Islam is understood in Europe now and in the fairly recent past and how the papers portray Islam and how European states have mostly signed onto the Arab League position on the Arab Israeli conflict and on anything involving the Arab Muslim regions and on how European populations - or at least the elites therein - react to anything that involves the Arab Muslim states or Islam or to any conflict involving Arab Muslim states and anyone else - as in the Muslim side is always right and the other side is fascistic or morally bad, etc., but the Arab Muslim side's shortcomings are all explained away or made invisible and thus uncriticized.

Our dialogue of sorts with Barrie suggests that even the idea of addressing Arab Muslim motives cannot even be heard. Rather, he has identified Europe's moral policy entirely with Muslim Arab policy as if they were the same thing!!! That fits my acquaintance's portrayal of what passes for opinion in Europe. In fact, he is almost the paradigm of what she sees as the new European person: subservient to Islamic causes.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

Oh, and The Enchanting Mr. Lambert (or as I should consider now calling him, Stephen Colbert's new alter ego) should realize that addressing the other side of an argument does not concede the alleged truth of it. But he probably wouldn't know that since he seems incapable of doing so.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

Your proposition is that Israel is an apartheid state. That proposition has not been shown. In fact, it is an idiotic position that held primarily by bigots. I would like to think that you are not a bigot so I shall merely note that your opinion is ignorant and contrary to fact.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

Lambert's participation here makes me wonder if a new description will have to be defined to describe a logical fallacy that erroneously implies something to is true, if one's grandma said so.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

I, for one, do not accept your characterization of Israel. Evidently, even President Carter does not accept your characterization. In fact, your characterization is what is called a BIG LIE.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

No facts that I've presented, nor that anyone else has presented - so far as I can see, or so far as you can argue - constitute anything resembling a plea in mitigation, and you know it.

And now here's a boilerplate pejorative to match those we've put up with from you for much too long this past week: More competently truthful prosecutions have been offered by totalitarian states against their internal enemies than those which you endorse on this board in attempting to convict Israel of "Apartheid."

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

I really don't understand your restraint. At the same time, I wouldn't want to discourage it, as you're able to engage him at a level that I'm not quite at. Nor would I want to discourage efforts at maintaining civil discourse. And yet, I've thought it obvious for some time that he uses his charm, personal anecdotes and British politeness to more firmly legitimize a veneer of sophistry that is still no excuse whatsoever for his factually illiterate demonizing, evasion and one-sidedness.

I quote George Harrison:

"In their styes with all their backing
They don't care what goes on around
In their eyes there's something lacking
What they need's a damn good whacking.

Everywhere there's lots of piggies
Living piggy lives
You can see them out for dinner
With their piggy wives
Clutching forks and knives to eat their bacon."

It looks like Harrison sees the last verse as needing the corrective action suggested in the previous verse. And I'm sure there is surely an intellectually appropriate way to carry that out.

Best,

E.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

Well, E, accuracy is "only meaningful" when "the facts they present to you" relate to the subject of the debate: whether or not it is reasonable to class Israel as an apartheid state. Pleas in mitigation disguised as "facts" don't count because, by definition, they constitute an admission that Israel is indeed an apartheid state.

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

Amazing. The phrase "If anyone..." means the Palestinians are Apartheidists, as Mr. Amitz showed, and NOT the Israelis. And the incident I showed exactly that they are not. The Israeli Arab who was killed was living in an integrated neighborhood and was mistaken for an ordinary civilian Jew by a Palestinian out to kill any old Jew.

I know you have trouble controlling your typing, Barrie Lambert. It's clear now that you can't read, either.

And remember, Carter HIMSELF admits he doesn't mean "Apartheid" in the South African sense, and says that's not what the book's title is about, so you literally don't know what you're talking about.

Barrie, you must learn to answer specific arguments.

And I suggest you treat people with a little more courtesy. At least the courtesy I extended to you above, when I could really have reamed you.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

As I have already stated further up this thread, all you can offer in this debate is one irrelevant argument after another in your increasingly pathetic attempts to mitigate Israel's apartheid policies and practices. There is only one point at issue in this debate: does the title of President Carter's book, " Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid", reflect reality? All this special pleading only confirms that you, Elliott, N, E and Yehudi have completely conceded the truth of the book's title and that you fully accept that Israel is an apartheid state. As an example, take your statement that "...if anyone engages in Apartheid it is the Palestinians...". How very enlightening: Israel may be an apartheid state but it's really all the fault of those terribly naughty Palestinians (who may or not actually exist depending on which of your other arguments we might choose to examine).

[ Reply ] [ Return to Comments ]

Peter Kovachev -
12/24/2006

And thanks for the water warning, Barrie...but don't worry, I'll just have to take sippy-cup water from Arab babies for my Zionist swimming pool at gun-point. Thought you'd like that.

Peter Kovachev -
12/24/2006

Thanks, Elliott. I never thought of looking into the climate, as I assumed it will be simply hot by April.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Indeed!!!

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

A clear example is his unwillingness to see that if anyone engages in Apartheid it is the Palestinians, as Amitz has pointed out.

Example: during the height of the Second Intifada, the son of a very prominent Israeli Arab was killed by a Palestinian terrorist while jogging peacefully by himself in a peaceful upscale neighborhood in Jerusalem. That's where his family had their home. The terrorist thought he was a Jew--so he killed him.

Where's the Apartheid here, eh?
And where is the racism, Barrie Lambert--as in, "Any Jew--or even anyone who LOOKS like a Jew--will do to kill."

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

(e) can account for (b) and (d), but (c), and especially (a), are a bit more difficult to account for, and less forgiveable. He talks about his age and the cutesy, formitive influence of Nana's universalist homilies regarding relations much more simplistic than those that occur between state actors, but those things are no excuse. They are not an excuse for feeling good in one's ripe old age at the expense of basic factual literacy - especially if one wants to talk of of situations with moral implications that he himself claims to recognize, in his own misplaced way.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

It seems evident that he doesn't have to /know/ HAMAS' position. He doesn't even have to /want/ to know it. What matters is what he /feels/ in his gut. And what he /feels/ is that Israel is wrong and bad and dangerous and that there are no facts that will compel him to look at the situation through a perspective with any degree of complexity greater than just that.

It's just that simple.

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

Give Barrie a break, Mr. Amitz.

Though I have to admit I thought about the Freudian angle, as the Master said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Anyway, Barrie's got far worse intellectual delicts than this on his conscience. Including

(a) a complete (and I mean complete) unwillingness to face uncomfortable facts, and

(b) a simplistic view of international relations in which there is one and only one actor (those bad Israelis), when any political scientist knows that international relations consists of multiple actors interacting simultaneously and synergistically, which means ALL must take responsibility; and

(c) a total wishful thinking about the aggressive and totalitarian nature of radical Islam (not unlike Chamberlain's attitude towards Hitler, as I've said); and

(e). He has fallen victim to the very clever Arab use of "anti-Imperialist" and "we're the victim" rhetoric to cover their failure to negotiate seriously, their imperialist intentions, their genocidal tactics, and their genocidal goal.

That's for a start.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

At the expense of my response engendering any expectation - on my part - of meaningful dialogue with the factually illiterate, I took your statement below:

I've just reviewed the entire thread and my conclusion is simple. If Art, N, E, Yehudi, Peter Kovachev and Elliot represent the views of the Jewish majority in Israel to any degree, or even just a significant minority, I cannot imagine it being anything other than a fully apartheid society.

...to indicate that you've never been to the very Israel that you're labelling as a "fully apartheid society."

And why does this matter anyway? If I am wrong and you have been there, what do you care? It's not as if you've made a concern for accuracy anywhere near a priority in all the posts you've published on this board. Or is accuracy only meaningful when it concerns others' statements of you, but not when it concerns your statements of others and their views, or even when it comes to the facts they present to you - only to be ignored in return?

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

That's probably because you were named after a guy who was always on the fiddle, Yehudi.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/24/2006

I don't really believe the Slumpert (sic) clown.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

How can you possibly say that the existence of Israel is not in doubt? First, that is objectively not true for any state on Earth. Second, Israel is a small state with a small population that has enemies all around it - i.e. it is surrounded - including a substantial portion of its own population which is more or less a fifth column. And the states surrounding the Arab states feel the need to appease the Arab states so Israel cannot even use European or Asian countries to balance the ire of Israel's enemies. In other words, Israel's existence is exceedingly at risk, more so than many other countries.

You write: "I think the wellbeing Of Israelis, Jew and Arab, would be much improved if the nature of the Jewish State were to change - much as I feel that my country would be a lot better off if we substituted referenda (or pretty much any democratic device, including the realistic prospect of impeachment, that would restrain a war-loving but totally detached and incompetent Prime Minister) for the Crown Prerogative."

But, to change the nature of Israel is to mean Jews would have to leave or live under Islamic law - i.e. under laws far more discriminatory than apartheid - as the Arab population's leader told the New York Times. See http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/international/middleeast/04HAMA.html?ex=1167109200&en=7222b0f1866bdf36&ei=5070

Maybe, papers in your country do not examine the Palestinian Arab position very carefully. You clearly do not know that position or you would not write what you state - unless, then again, you actually want to harm the country's Jewish population. Here is what the New York Times learned (from the previously noted article):

The goals of Hamas are straightforward. As Sheik Yassin put it, "our equation does not focus on a cease-fire; our equation focuses on an end to the occupation." By that he means an end to the Jewish occupation of historical Palestine. [Note, Barrie, they mean all of Israel, not just the captured territories.]

Hamas wants Israeli withdrawal from all of the West Bank and Gaza, the dismantling of all Israeli settlements and full right of return for the four million Palestinians who live in other states. After that, the Jews could remain, living "in an Islamic state with Islamic law," Dr. Zahar said. "From our ideological point of view, it is not allowed to recognize that Israel controls one square meter of historic Palestine." [Note, Barrie, that means the Jews who remained could not, even in theory, have anything remotely like equal rights, which is what Islamic law - all schools of Islamic law, by the way - dictates. That would mean that Jews could not voter, among other things.]

Mr. Shenab insisted that he was not joking when he said, "There are a lot of open areas in the United States that could absorb the Jews." [Note; Palestinian Arabs understand that Jews would not likely accept non-citizen status - i.e. the status available ofr Jews and Christians if Islamic law were implemented.]

********************

On the night of the Passover attack, Dr. Zahar released a statement saying it was intended in part to shut down the cease-fire negotiations then under way, directed by Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the American special envoy.

In the interview today, Dr. Zahar explained, "the Zinni mission was bad for us" because, under the proposed terms of the cease-fire, groups like Hamas would be disarmed and their leaders arrested.

"Besides," Dr. Rantisi said, "we in Hamas believe peace talks will do no good. We do not believe we can live with the enemy."

And, to note, the HAMAS now is the dominant force among Palestinian Arabs. So, what you write is all nonsense. The Arab side does not favor your position.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

How can you possibly say that the existence of Israel is not in doubt? First, that is objectively not true for any state on Earth. Second, Israel is a small state with a small population that has enemies all around it - i.e. it is surrounded - including a substantial portion of its own population which is more or less a fifth column. And the states surrounding the Arab states feel the need to appease the Arab states so Israel cannot even use European or Asian countries to balance the ire of Israel's enemies. In other words, Israel's existence is exceedingly at risk, more so than many other countries.

You write: "I think the wellbeing Of Israelis, Jew and Arab, would be much improved if the nature of the Jewish State were to change - much as I feel that my country would be a lot better off if we substituted referenda (or pretty much any democratic device, including the realistic prospect of impeachment, that would restrain a war-loving but totally detached and incompetent Prime Minister) for the Crown Prerogative."

But, to change the nature of Israel is to mean Jews would have to leave or live under Islamic law - i.e. under laws far more discriminatory than apartheid - as the Arab population's leader told the New York Times. See http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/04/international/middleeast/04HAMA.html?ex=1167109200&en=7222b0f1866bdf36&ei=5070

Maybe, papers in your country do not examine the Palestinian Arab position very carefully. You clearly do not know that position or you would not write what you state - unless, then again, you actually want to harm the country's Jewish population. Here is what the New York Times learned (from the previously noted article):

The goals of Hamas are straightforward. As Sheik Yassin put it, "our equation does not focus on a cease-fire; our equation focuses on an end to the occupation." By that he means an end to the Jewish occupation of historical Palestine. [Note, Barrie, they mean all of Israel, not just the captured territories.]

Hamas wants Israeli withdrawal from all of the West Bank and Gaza, the dismantling of all Israeli settlements and full right of return for the four million Palestinians who live in other states. After that, the Jews could remain, living "in an Islamic state with Islamic law," Dr. Zahar said. "From our ideological point of view, it is not allowed to recognize that Israel controls one square meter of historic Palestine." [Note, Barrie, that means the Jews who remained could not, even in theory, have anything remotely like equal rights, which is what Islamic law - all schools of Islamic law, by the way - dictates. That would mean that Jews could not voter, among other things.]

Mr. Shenab insisted that he was not joking when he said, "There are a lot of open areas in the United States that could absorb the Jews." [Note; Palestinian Arabs understand that Jews would not likely accept non-citizen status - i.e. the status available ofr Jews and Christians if Islamic law were implemented.]

********************

On the night of the Passover attack, Dr. Zahar released a statement saying it was intended in part to shut down the cease-fire negotiations then under way, directed by Gen. Anthony C. Zinni, the American special envoy.

In the interview today, Dr. Zahar explained, "the Zinni mission was bad for us" because, under the proposed terms of the cease-fire, groups like Hamas would be disarmed and their leaders arrested.

"Besides," Dr. Rantisi said, "we in Hamas believe peace talks will do no good. We do not believe we can live with the enemy."

And, to note, the HAMAS now is the dominant force among Palestinian Arabs. So, what you write is all nonsense. The Arab side does not favor your position.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

"...in a country he has never been to..." As a matter of interest, E, are you referring to Israel or to Palestine?

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

Yet another set of irrelevant arguments seeking to mitigate Israeli apartheid. You should stick to the point at issue in this debate: does the title of President Carter's book, " Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid", reflect reality? Your various pleas in mitigation only confirm that you have conceded the truth of the title.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

Elliott, you really do need to remind Peter to take lots of bottled water with him, otherwise he might wear out his welcome.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

Stick to the issue under consideration, Elliot. The impression I get is that you and Art an E and N are intent only on entering a whole slew of pretty irrelevant pleas in mitigation of Israel's standing as an apartheid state and, in so doing, each of you has conceded the point made in the title of President Carter's book. " Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". If your were to jump out of denial mode and we might actually get somewhere.

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

Muslims rule everywhere from Morrocco to Indonesia because thoe were areas that they conquered militarily, and this is accepted by Muslims as natural (because these areas, all of them, including Spain, were GIVEN to them because the worshipped God correctly). Now in most cases, the result has been cultural and economic stagnation for the last 800 years. As the Syrian poet Adonis said in March, the culture of the Arabs is enslaved to religion, and dead. But the RIGHT of Muslim states to control the areas they conquered from others is NEVER questioned by Muslims. This includes areas such as Pakistan (Sind, for instance), which from the 10th century onward resisted Muslim aggression and the result was enormous slaughters of the indigenous peoples. But Muslim imperialism was so thorough that Pakistanis now either are ignorant of the resistance they put up to Muslim conquest or view the resisters as evil. Now THAT is real and thorough imperial conquest!

I didn't come up with that example. V. S. Naipaul (Nobel Prize in Literature) did.

I simply point out your usual bottomless hypocrisy in your posting above.

In the case of Israel, part of the land came from the U.N. legal decision, and part was the result of successful warfare when attacked. Every area which Muslims rule now is the result of successful warfare, and they WEREN'T attacked.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

God, Art, it should read "likely". I really do need to read what I've written a lot more carefully before I submit it. Sorry if I have caused anyone any offense by this stupid keyboard error. Put it down to a combination of age, impatience, and too great a taste for the pleasures of Yuletide over-refreshment (although they were a lot less evident this morning than they were yesterday evening). All other possible sources of offense are, of course, absolutely intentional.

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

Barrie Lambert:, did you ACTUALLY write "KIKELY" in response to Ametz?

art eckstein -
12/24/2006

Thanks, N.F.

Yes, indeed, important scholars have argued that British betrayal of Czechoslovakia--while blaming the Czechs for not committing suicide willingly-- made it easy for Hitler to believe that the guarantees given Poland in spring 1939 after he had utterly destroyed Czechoslovakia were, simply, so much hot air.

That in turn made it easy for Hitler to assume that the British and French would cave in over Danzig as they had over Czechoslovakia. (Even as it was, they hesitated, as you point out.) Thus did British betrayal of Czechoslovakia in 1938 (the French were more willing to fight in 1938) lead to Nazi disbelief that the British were serious in 1939. And indeed, why SHOULD they have believed it? And hence...to the attack on Poland, and to the terrible World War. I'm surprised that Barrie isn't arguing that "War for Danzig" was a terrible mistake too.

In each case of Nazi aggression from 1936-1939 (the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Danzig) the Germans in fact had "a legitimate grievance," as the pro-German and anti-Versailles appeasers among the British elite never tired of pointing out in each case, to defend the armed German attack and to prevent a British response. In each case, they did not consider the situation of the OTHER side and ITS problems, or they BLAMED the other side--the French in 1936, the anti-Nazi Austrians in early 1938, the Czechs in late 1938-- except finally for Poland. (Though, again, many folks like Lambert believed the Germans had a "legitimate grievance" over Danzig.)

It was only, finally, when one looked at the whole sequence that the pattern of aggression aimed at domination of the Continent became clear. And of course by 1938 the savagely militaristic nature of the Nazi government and society had become perfectly clear, except to Mr. Chamberlain, who believed that Hitler--despite every evidence--could be an apostle of peace.

"Despite every evidence"--now THAT, of course, sounds like Barrie Lambert, who responds to the presentation of specific unpalatable evidence with silence, or disdain, or blaming the messenger for mentioning it.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

"from the gut" in the first sentence.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

You know, even Stephen Colbert couldn't invent a guy as impervious to fact and as "from the guy" as Lambert.

If you've never seen the Colbert Report, the earlier segments describe Lambert perfectly. In justifying his nomination of Harriett Miers for the SCOTUS, Bush defended his position by "know(ing) her heart." Colbert endorses this Lambertian process of decision-making, appropriates it for his show, and describes the result thus:

"Now I know some of you may not trust your gut…yet. But with my help you will. The “truthiness” is, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news…at you."

-------------------------------------

The segment in further context:

Anybody who knows me knows that I am no fan of dictionaries or reference books. They’re elitist for constantly telling us what is or isn’t true, what did or didn’t happen…

I don’t trust books. They’re all fact and no heart. And that’s exactly what’s pulling our country apart today. Because face it, folks, we are a divided nation… We are divided by those who think with their head, and those who know with their heart.

Consider Harriett Miers. If you think about Harriett Miers, of course her nomination’s absurd! But the President didn’t say he thought about this selection, he said this:

President Bush: “I know her heart.”

Notice that he didn’t say anything about her brain? He didn’t have to. He feels the truth about Harriett Miers. And what about Iraq? If you think about it, maybe there are a few missing pieces to the rationale for war. But doesn’t taking Saddam out feel like the right thing…right here in the gut? Because that’s where the truth comes from, ladies and gentlemen…the gut.

Did you know that you have more nerve endings in your stomach than in your head? Look it up. Now, somebody’s gonna say `I did look that up and its wrong‘. Well, Mister, that’s because you looked it up in a book. Next time, try looking it up in your gut. I did. And my gut tells me that’s how our nervous system works.

Now I know some of you may not trust your gut…yet. But with my help you will. The “truthiness” is, anyone can read the news to you. I promise to feel the news…at you.

-------------------------------------

I think Colbert understands guys like Lambert, as well.

E. Simon -
12/24/2006

What I do know is that Lambert uses proof by assertion and labelling so much that I don't understand why you and Art would waste so much precious time with a man whose Christianity hasn't yet taught him not to misrepresent not only the names of others, but also their positions. There is not much point in a dialogue who with a man who - out of one side of his mouth - says he respects the views of those whose stance vis a vis MLK is unequivocal, when on the other side of his mouth, he calls those same people supportive of Apartheid. An alleged Apartheid allegedly being practiced in a country he has never been to, let alone knows anything about.

"He's a real nowhere man, sitting in his nowhere land, making all his nowhere plans, for nobody."

"Doesn't have a point of view, knows not where he's going to, Isn't he a bit like you and me?"

"Nowhere Man, please listen,
You don't know what you're missing,
Nowhere Man, the world is at your command."

"He's as blind as he can be,
Just sees what he wants to see,
Nowhere Man can you see me at all?"

"Nowhere Man, don't worry,
Take your time, don't hurry,
Leave it all till somebody else
lends you a hand."

Elliott Aron Green -
12/24/2006

If Barrie is still looking for a copy of the Hamas charter, Raphael Israeli published an English translation of same with commentary. Look it up on google or in the political science and int'l affairs indices.
Art, your quote from Inskip was amazing. I would add that the Runciman Report of the same vintage complains about Czech colonization of settlers in the Sudetenland. Plus ca change. . . [see Runciman Report, cmd 5847, no. 1.; also in JW Bennet's book on Munich].

As to British policy in those years, let's bear in mind UK policy on the Holocaust. Why didn't HMG bomb Auschwitz? Is it because they wanted to rearm, Barrie, or Why? BTW, Communists apologizing for the Nazi-Soviet Pact used the same argument, that the Pact bought Stalin time to rearm. Further, the BBC had directives to play down the Holocaust. See Barbara Rogers and others. Why Barrie?

Now, Barrie claims that the Mufti was "marginal." It was precisely British officials who made him CENTRAL!! --who made him mufti of Jerusalem [against Muslim scholars] and head of the Supreme Muslim Council. It would be a hilarious claim were the events not so sad.
Then, Israel can make peace on its own. Again, tragicomic.
--Olmert's election-- Actually, olmert's party got less than 1/4 of the vote. So he hardly has a mandate for any policy.
--Barrie's Muslim roommate -- Did BL give up his faculty of critical thinking because a Muslim friend told him such and such?
--The quote that NF provided from the Hamas charter: On Judgement Day the Jews will hide behind stones and trees, that will cry out: O Muslim, a Jew is hiding behind me. Come kill him. This fable appears several times in the Islamic hadiths. It proves that Muslim hostility to Jews long antedates the State of Israel and Herzl's Zionist Organization.
-- BL for some foolish or ignorant reason identifies or conflates Lebanon and the Hizbullah. This was done too by Italian FM Massimo d'Alema [the Communist] on his trip to the Hizbullah stronghold of Dahiya in southern Beirut. Actually, most Lebanese are opposed to Hizbullah, as we see now during the Hizb's effort to overthrow the government there, which has not yet succeeded.
-- BL claims that Gaza is a concentration camp. In fact, the border with Egypt is open, it is not controlled by Israel. Food is coming in. Indeed, all of the int'l humanitarian orgs that couldn't care less about the starving in Sudan or the hungry in Central Asia or the Caucasus are eager to supply food to the Arabs in Gaza. Some poor and suffering are much more deserving than others, just as some are more equal than others.
--the Palest Arabs are not alone. They are supported by immensely wealthy Arab states [& most Muslim states], states so rich and influential that the Royal Inst of Int'l Affairs is always on their side and the UK PM, tony, cancelled an investigation in order to please them.

As to BL's arguing style, maybe it is a British trait, but we wouldn't want to overgeneralize. However, I do notice that the argument gets very ad hominem when supporting facts are lacking.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

Is headbanging a phase you will grow out of, I ask myself, or is it kikely to be a permanent condition? Perhaps it would reduce in intensity if you were to have a little think and develop a realistic sense of embarrassment.

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

I know. In this life it really does pay to keep right on top of the ball.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/24/2006

I repost my message because in its previous form it was sidetracked by the Slumpert clown.

The dictionary definition of apartheid:

"A social policy or racial segregation involving political and economic and legal discrimination against people who are not Whites; the former official policy in South Africa"

Politically the Arabs in Israel are very well represented in the Israeli Knesset and the Arabs in the Palestinian territories have their own government with free elections. With the exception of Jordan Palestinians have no rights in any of the Arab countries they reside.
Palestinian economy is in shambles because they prefer to use the money for weapons smuggling instead of building an economy. Shimon Peres, a very experienced builder of industrial zones in Israel, expressed many times his eagerness to help the Palestinians do the same but the Palestinian eagerness to kill Israelis is more powerful than the constructive ideas of Shimon Peres. Do you remember the Jericho casino, a Palestinian-European-Israeli joint venture, where hundreds of Palestinians were employed? Gone with the wind. If the Palestinians don't want an economy, it's very easy, they are not going to have one. But why blame the Jews for the destructive state of mind of the Islamic psyche? By the way Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem employs a lot of Palestinian doctors and nurses. The only economic discrimination is done by the Palestinians on themselves and by other Arabs on Palestinians. Legal segregation is non existent in Israel and Palestinian authority. The are only travel limitations and road blocks caused by the security situation. Legal segregation was what USA had before the civil rights legislation in the 1960s, when the law forbade a black to urinate in the same place a white could. The black person could be lynched for urinating against the law.
The only segregated areas in the Palestinian Authority are the Arab areas where the Jews are forbidden to enter under the threat of lynching.
Putting the word apartheid next to the Jewish behavior in the disputed territories is the way Carter expresses his deep hatred of Jews.
The best description of the book is here:

Jimmy Carter preaches what he believes : hate the Jews and get rid of them! He doesn't care much about real apartheid in Darfur, Saudi Arabia, Palestinian Authority. He will brown-nose Arafat or any other Arab killer to make sure that someone will be there to fulfill his dreams for the final solution of the Jewish problem!

Barrie Lambert -
12/24/2006

But N, why on earth should I want the Israelis to "disappear"? Or the Palestinians, or anyone else for that matter? The existential nature of the Jewish State is not in doubt (otherwise you wouldn't even bother to pursue this argument) but the future wellbeing of the Jewish people is not, never has been, and never will be an issue as far as I am, and most of the rest of humanity, including the Palestinians, is, concerned. I think the wellbeing Of Israelis, Jew and Arab, would be much improved if the nature of the Jewish State were to change - much as I feel that my country would be a lot better off if we substituted referenda (or pretty much any democratic device, including the realistic prospect of impeachment, that would restrain a war-loving but totally detached and incompetent Prime Minister) for the Crown Prerogative.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/24/2006

Peter K,
Ma`aleh Adumim is beautifully located in many ways. The air is dry desert air, but not as hot as farther east in the Judean desert. It is mentioned in the Book of Joshua, as well as in Eusebios' Onomasticon and in Jerome's version of Eusebios's Onomasticon [Maledomnei, Maledomnus].

Elliott Aron Green -
12/24/2006

Barrie, does baker have to explicitly say: "Let's trade Jewish blood for Arab oil" or "Let's trade Jewish blood for mighty Syria's acquiescence to our policy in Iraq"??? Baker's not that dumb. In fact, he's very slick. Did Hitler say, I'm going to slaughter the Jews? No, he didn't say that explicitly but he insinuated it if one read his statements carefully.

Many people believe that Baker's proposals mean letting Arabs murder Jews. Now, since that was British policy during the Holocaust [allowing the Germans to do it] and after the Holocaust [encouraging the Arabs, even sending British forces to fight for the Arabs], then why wouldn't some people today reasonably see Baker as advocating the same?

Elliott Aron Green -
12/24/2006

`Umar, you disappoint me. I had long believed that one of the good sides of the Arabs was that they were less hypocritical than the Europeans, less inclined than the British, for example, to ooze holier than thou "peace" rhetoric. But here I find you hypocritically falling into a pattern pointed out by Anatole France. He wrote something like: The law in its majesty forbids rich and poor alike to steal bread and sleep under bridges. So do you really equate the mass murder in the Sudan [and in Algeria, where Muslims slaughter Muslims] with stealing bread or a hunted man who illegally trespasses on a rich man's estate in search of refuge? "A crime is a crime," you say and one must not quantify it or put it in a hierarchy.

To be sure, I do not view the reestablishment of a Jewish state in the Land of Israel as a crime in any sense. Arab-Muslim rule was imposed on the Jews' Land by conquest, and after what seems to have an initial soft period, later `Umayyads and Abbasids imposed the full dhimmi status on Jews and Christians in the Land, in the Jews' own Land. Even the Qur'an agrees that it was the Jews' land. I know that you interpret the clear meaning of the Qur'an's words to suit 21st century politics.
Further, the Jews always regarded the country as their land to which they would eventually return, whether by human or divine action [consider the 10th of the 18 benedictions: "Gather us together quickly from the four corners of the Earth to our Land."]. So the Jews have always viewed returning to the Land as their natural right, although some have questioned its political advisability or divine approval of the timing]. To conclude, do you really mean to equate stealing bread with the mass murder in the Sudan which just happens to be perpetrated by Muslims?

Peter Kovachev -
12/24/2006

Right you are, Barrie, relevance is the only issue, hence your poignant references to winter breaks, defacating Syrian suicide-pigeons and idiot cousins.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Mr. Simon,

In fact, you are N. Didn't you know?

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

Frankly, you really, really should feel queasy. How, on this Earth, could you think that people who send their children to blow up civilians - and then celebrate the deaths and, as some have done, offered more children to blow up more people - are not maniacal?

Your remark is hypocritical.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Art,

Brilliant response.

I note one point written by Barrie as quoted by you above. He focuses substantially on the number of deaths in WWII to, if I understand him correctly, support the policy of Chamberlain. One might think that the horrible death count undermines Chamberlain's position.

I do not claim expertise on WWII. However, my memory is that when Hitler invaded Poland, Germany was extremely vulnerable to attack from France. England and France were, still at that point, willing to sacrifice Poland, more or less, on the theory of giving the free city of Danzig to Germany. Germany played the British on this in order to delay France and Britain's entry into the war or, perhaps, the British (and maybe also French) deluded themselves on this all on their own. And, the delay was a continuation of the peace at any price and in our time and Germany has limited aims thinking. And, the result was that the period of serious vulnerability of Germany came to naught. Am I wrong about this?

Assuming as I do that I have my facts more or less straight, it seems to me that all of the delays, after it became obvious that Germany was bent on conquest - and, the aftermath of Munich sort of made this rather obvious -, one way or the other, using alleged injustices from the Versailles treaty as an excuse, more likely cost lives than saved them. After all, if France and Britain had attacked when Germany left itself extremely vulnerable, the Germany would have been on the defensive from early on.

As I see Barrie, he is part of the anti-Imperial crowd. His view of the world is that Westerners, and most especially Israelis - because it is trendy to focus on Israel and to accuse Israel of doing what European countries do without criticism -, have no right to take steps to defend themselves if that defense requires any restrictions on those who attack. Consider also that he is willing to force Protestants from Northern Ireland to return to Britain - after having been in Northern Ireland for many centuries. Evidently, he has no statute of limitations - although he does for Muslim Arabs -.

N. Friedman -
12/24/2006

Barrie,

We appear not to even be observing the same situation. Art and I keep pointing out facts that disagree with your interpretation of the circumstances. You make no factual or other argument at all. You merely keep blaming the Israelis as if only they hold the key to what is occurring. And you keep saying, but without substantiation, that our arguments are irrelevant. But, you refuse to show us why or to refute our arguments.

Maybe you do not know how to argue. Maybe you are afraid to argue. Maybe you just want to be contentious. But, whatever it is, you do not advance your position by merely saying "I disagree" or "You are wrong" or the like.

In any event, your position is rather convenient for someone not affected. The Israelis, however, are affected directly. And, if you want to convince an Israeli, you have to explain why - with facts and real arguments - you think that Israelis can solve the problems they face. They can, of course, try to solve your problem by disappearing but you have not shown how working to solve your problem helps solve Israel's problem. You merely insist on calling the Israelis names. And that - no offense - is priggish and typically English.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

I can't, Art, because what you say is just silly. You are, in all probability, a totally nice guy but your ideas make me feel a little queasy.

Think of the Monty Python dead parrot joke and you might see your own reflection in there.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

No. Peter. And I tend not to hint. Relevance is the only issue. And it is tough to be a Canadian - my best cuz tells me so, so there you go, OK?

Enjoy the mid-winter break, if that is at all possible in Canada, and avoid low flying pigeons because they are probably Syranian trained suicide bombers. Or maybe just pigeons wanting a shit. Who knows? Perhaps you do. But then who really knows anything? Not me, for sure. There you go,

Barrie

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

A first step towards friendship, Barrie, is for you to acknowledge honestly the reality of the maniacal threat Israel faces and to realize that all else stems from that, and that, furthermore, this manaical threat is coming in great part from a deep sickness within Palestinian and Arab and Muslim society.

That is, it is not a "natural" response to the creation of israel. Omar has made that perfectly clear in his only intelligent statement on this blog. The war is a CHOICE, and the genocidal weapon off sucide-bombing is also a weapon of CHOICE, and yet you refuse to even discuss this aspect of the problem--preferring instead that Israel will just go away like Czechoslovakia, so that you and Neville C. can enjoy your tea in peace, enjoy your naivete about the REALLY militarized and warlike people on this earth in peace, enjoy your wishful thinking in peace. The only people you condemn are those who want peace and have made concession after concession to get it. The only people you won't condemn are those whose only purpose in life is violence (jihad). It's grotesque.

Furthermore, you make quite ridiculous obiter dicta remarks and then pass onward, without feeling any necessity to defend them (mostly because they are indefensible), and unphased by the detailed responses that you provoke. That, at the least, is impolite and irresponsible.

Finally, you can't just call people who marched with Dr. King "racists" and then move on.

Peter Kovachev -
12/23/2006

Idiocy, indeed, Barrie, coming right of you. Is Israel to be the only country to be piloried for bringing in foreign workers?

What about the EU with its million or so guest workers. Here in Canada we have a few thousand construction workers from Portugal and our farms and orchards bring in Jamaicans every harvest season. They live in barracks and are not allowed to leave the farms and mingle. What about UAE and other Gulf States, whose majority are formed by generations of foreign workers who will never have citizenship or any civil rights.

You want to hint at slavery? What about the real stuff? Like the tens of thousands of genuine Black African and South East Asian slaves in the Arab world? Slaves as in people purchased in slave markets from slave dealers to be used as servants and sex toys. Have you any biblical analogies to make about these cases?

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

Oh that's all right then. Just like the slaves that Moses freed in Egypt-land.

Climax to idiocy... Wow!!!... Right on...!!!

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

Then we both know the score and you should work for change in Israel, Art.

I'm an ageing post-imperial Brit and all I have is a voice, just like you. Let's be wise and frame our arguments for our children's children.

Enjoy Christmas, Bonny Lad, and remember, every disagreement is the prelude to a friendship, and any friendship can contain the whole world. My Gran said that.

Merry Christmas

Barrie

Yehudi Amitz -
12/23/2006

The Arabs are free to enter the Jewish areas, they did most of the building there, though, I guess, that today there are ore foreign workers there, for security reasons.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/23/2006

The dictionary definition of apartheid:

"A social policy or racial segregation involving political and economic and legal discrimination against people who are not Whites; the former official policy in South Africa"

Politically the Arabs in Israel are very well represented in the Israeli Knesset and the Arabs in the Palestinian territories have their own government with free elections. With the exception of Jordan Palestinians have no rights in any of the Arab countries they reside.
Palestinian economy is in shambles because they prefer to use the money for weapons smuggling instead of building an economy. Shimon Peres, a very experienced builder of industrial zones in Israel, expressed many times his eagerness to help the Palestinians do the same but the Palestinian eagerness to kill Israelis is more powerful than the constructive ideas of Shimon Peres. Do you remember the Jericho casino, a Palestinian-European-Israeli joint venture, where hundreds of Palestinians were employed? Gone with the wind. If the Palestinians don't want an economy, it's very easy, they are not going to have one. But why blame the Jews for the destructive state of mind of the Islamic psyche? By the way Hadassah Medical Center in Jerusalem employs a lot of Palestinian doctors and nurses. The only economic discrimination is done by the Palestinians on themselves and by other Arabs on Palestinians. Legal segregation is non existent in Israel and Palestinian authority. The are only travel limitations and road blocks caused by the security situation. Legal segregation was what USA had before the civil rights legislation in the 1960s, when the law forbade a black to urinate in the same place a white could. The black person could be lynched for urinating against the law.
Putting the word apartheid next to the Jewish behavior in the disputed territories is the way Carter expresses his deep hatred of Jews.

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

I, too, heard Doctor King live, like N.F. and Barrie, like N.F., I did my share of marching. I take great offense at your statement about supporting Apartheid, which is not only greatly offensive but in any case nonsense.

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

Barrie complains about our not responding to his response: after a lot of looking, I FOUND his response it, and I now do Barrie yet another kindness,--though some will think it an unkindness, given what he says. I post it here, along with N.F.'s response--and then mine.

(#103492)
by Barrie Lambert on December 23, 2006 at 2:08 PM
It seems that N and Art still prefer to believe that shards of recycled gossip and lots of centre stage whining somehow enhances their ability to advance points which, hopefully, support their obviously flawed stance in this debate. It transforms history into fairy tale along with pantomime villains, pantalooned fools, naive onlookers and a zionist Dick Whittington in fishnet tights. So, if you’re sitting quietly, I’ll begin.

Hindsight is a wonderful teacher who always seems to have the right answers; however, experience should tell us that, over time, focus changes with circumstance, and the answers offered by hindsight change in tandem. History is a process of continuous revision. Now, for what they considered good reasons, Henderson, Inskip, Kennard and Chamberlain, and many others in many other countries, sought to maintain the peace of Europe and, thereby, the peace of the world. In the light of the many outcomes of WW2, was this a dishonourable or even, to use Art’s term, a naive objective? Take this summary of WW2 casualties given by Wikipedia:

"The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 62 million people. The civilian toll was around 37 million, the military toll about 25 million. The Allies lost around 51 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

Naive? In the light of events, no. A failed policy? Yes. Did it give the United Kingdom time to rearm against Hitler? Yes. Art’s account of Munich bad history? Well, yes - so partial that it can only have originated in the land of fairy tales in which we began. Oh, apropos Henderson on the Czechs, most Sudetan Germans seemed to consider the invasion, echoing some of N’s previous posts, nothing less than a liberation. What does sound more familiar to me is the notion that the past is usually a lot more complex than at first it appears and the lessons it provides us with are rarely clear, and if they do seem clear it’s good evidence that we’ve got it wrong.

As for Duff Cooper, he was Secretary of State for War from November, 1935 - May, 1937, from which position he spearheaded Britain's rearmament programme, and became First Lord of the Admiralty in May, 1937 and resigned when Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement. The only reason I can imagine you quoted Duff Cooper is your unfamiliarity with your sources. Cooper was a wonderful and prolific diarist who held positions which evolved and changed over time on many of the issues which attracted his interest and students find it useful to rummage through his diaries to support diverse views of the period covering the First War to the Korean War. As well as being a splendid gossip - and all to serious purpose - Cooper was also a very sophisticated and complex political analyst whose thoughts on imperial strategy and the conduct of the Chamberlain Cabinet bear much deeper reflection than your quotation suggests you are able to give them.

"The spoilt child...the parallels in attitude are clear, are they not?" Well, that may be, but parallels between what, and which children? Or is this another riddle? And talking of the spoilt child, what about this as an example:

"Chamberlain's naiveté was terrible; but Barrie's is twice as bad, because there's a lot more evidence in front of him, and it's a naiveté that can't be covered over by his ineffable British snobbery and dismissiveness. (It's a particular British style of debate; I've seen it before, with British academics, and they use it especially when they have a weak evidentiary position.)" And, of course, when they happen to disagree with your ill-thought through arguments and offer alternative frames of reference for you to consider. For example, take the following statement made by you in the same post: "... you can't blame the Israelis without looking--and looking deeply--at the degenerate death-cult that is now Palestinian society in particular and Arab society in general." Oh yes I can because, even on a relatively superficial analysis, I am inclined to the interim conclusion that, even if this "degenerate death-cult" were to exist, it is more likely to be caused by exogenous pressures on Palestinian (and Arab, if you will) society than by purely endogenous factors - otherwise, how otherwise can we account for the continued existence of this particular society? A weak-form death cult, perhaps, balancing, say, the Crucifixion with the Nativity? Which tends to point the finger at......? Still, I must admit, on second glance the research possibilities are intriguing. However, if you’d like to read an extraordinary (still memorable after more than forty years) and succinct discussion on the nature of death and dying in a post-Islamic culture, try and get hold of a copy of Arthur Koestler’s "Arrival and Departure" (1943). Interesting stuff, and he don’t make no cheap points, either.

Oh, and I still haven’t found N’s post giving chapter and verse of Hamas’ genocidal policy. More guidance, please.

N. Friedman’s response (#103502)
on December 23, 2006 at 4:21 PM

Barrie,
On rearming, I would suggest you read Martin Gilbert's The Appeasers. The time to rearm argument might make sense if the time had been used to rearm. But, that is not what occurred. And, the policy was not merely to bring peace. The policy was to make an alliance with Germany. And, according to Gilbert, Chamberlain's group just brushed aside evidence they did not like, as if it did not exist.

I do agree with you that 20/20 hindsight is always easy and that, as Peter C., notes understanding what made the Nazis tick was not self evident, at least in 1935. However, by the time of Munich, only the blind or, as with the British government, intentionally blind, did not understand.

Well, your argument regarding the Arab death cult, of which the Palestinian Arab version is an example and not an unique example, does not make a lot of sense. What are the outside pressures on Sudan? What are the outside pressures on Pakistan? What are the outside pressures on Saudi Arabia? Now, no doubt, there are pressures on each of these noted locales but, to be frank, very similar reactions are coming from people with very different circumstances raises important issues.

I already cited you the material from the HAMAS numerous times.

Art's response to Barrie:

1. Your position is that it was fine for the West to sacrifice Czechoslovakia to Germany because this despicable act bought the West a year to rearm against Nazi Germany.

That may or may not be the case. But what you neglect is that while sacrificing Czechoslovakia to Germany, the British Cabinet consistently attacked the CZECHS on MORAL grounds (rather than the Nazis) for not committing suicide fast enough, for being reluctant to make concessions (though they eventually did so) in negotiations with the Sudetens which were always fraudulent and in bad faith on the Sudenten side from the beginning (as we know now). The parallel with Israel is all too obvious: just look at Omar. And the same British "sophisticates" who condemned the Czechs for wanting to survive and BLAMED them as they BETRAYED them (there's the rub, Barrie—do you see it now?), these same people now condemn Israel for not making enough concessions when the other side has made NONE. History does repeat itself here, and grotesquely.

2. Here's the crucial point: " [Art says]... you can't blame the Israelis without looking--and looking deeply--at the degenerate death-cult that is now Palestinian society in particular and Arab society in general." Barrie replies: "Oh yes, I can, because, even on a relatively superficial analysis, I am inclined to the interim conclusion that, even if this "degenerate death-cult" were to exist, it is more likely to be caused by exogenous pressures on Palestinian (and Arab, if you will) society than by purely endogenous factors."

That's a grotesque position as well, and N.F. reply above, skewers you on it. What about Darfur, Saudi Arabia, etc? This death cult is coming from within Islam itself, the Muslims are subjects and AGENTS within history, not passive objects of other’s actions. You treat them like they were children, and blame the Israelis for Palestinian glorification of suicide-bombers of civilians when (say) there are no descendants of displaced Germans from 60 years ago blowing up discoteques in Warsaw today, or descendants of displaced Moroccan Jews from 60 years ago blowing up buses in Fez today.. So much for your "exogenous pressures" invariably producing a predetermined death-cult outcome, with no endogenous factors involved, no responsibility from within the society! Your position is ridiculous. Not even Omar accepts your position because he has said that the Palestinian war against Israel is a CHOICE: Other displaced peoples, and other peoples who suffered more, and larger displaced populations than the Palestinians, did NOT make the Palestinian choice, Omar admits, but Arabs are NOBLE and therefore make this choice. Omar may be a brute, but at least he is honest about the Arab position, unlike you. And he is not a paternalistic pat-the-suicide-bomber on the head—"there, there, it’s not your fault you’re a criminal, it’s doze AWFUL Israelis"-- snob like you are, Barrie.

3. You do not deny Duff Cooper's EVIDENCE about the perverse attitude of the British Cabinet: Cooper thought it perverse, which is why he resigned after Munich. Now, in your "Boys’ Own Paper" sort of ruthlessnes, you DON’T think the British Cabinet position was perverse to sacrifice Czechoslovakia to Hitler while blaming the Czechs for not going along fast enough. That’s another bizarre postion of yours—but MY point was merely to demonstrate, because you expressed doubt ("bad history")-- wat the British Cabinet attitude WAS: they blamed the Czechs for not committing suicide fast enough. That’s Cooper’s testimony.

Arnold Shcherban -
12/23/2006

Or do you deny that "not all gold that glistens"?
Therefore, this proverb becomes one the major tools of historico-political
analysis and analysis of author's intentions(?!)

E. Simon -
12/23/2006

I didn't realize that subtlety could be employed to the extent of making one's arguments effectively invisible, Barrie. Nor is it apparent how such a degree of subtlety serves the purpose of rational discourse, but perhaps that was never your goal anyway. I am so used to your version of being intentionally unclear that we might as well be discussing different varieties of Guiness at this point, rather than something that others might consider more important, such as conflicts in the Middle East.

And by the way, I'm not N., as you unsubtly and mistakenly refer to me.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

N, I have great respect for your views and I think it would be churlish of me to quote your position, with the implication of impartiality that would entail, when your posts are readily available on this thread.

I chose not to re-post my responses to both you and Art in the final section of the thread because I assume that if anyone - hopefully younger than we are but who are equally unafraid of the notion that truth is provisional and partial - is interested enough to pursue what is, after all, a difficult argument, both emotionally and politically, for all of us, they will take the time and make the effort to work through the thread.

And if only one person does that it's worth it, n'est-il pas?

Cool Yule, &c.

Barrie

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Art,

You are being too kind.

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

Ah, now I have found this, Barrie! Yes, N.F. is exactly right. You are admitting that some of our parallels are exact, it seems to me. Well, which ones? And what are the policy implications? Well, you do not say.

But you do say we have more misses than hits--but then again, you don't have specifics, you just make a blanket accusation. Unless you want to take us up point by point, all you are doing is blustering.

Come on, Barrie--give us specifics (we have done so) and we can have a real conversation.

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

When I posted the above material on Munich, there WERE no responses from you, Barrie, as far as I could tell.

You might want to post your responses here now, since we are gathering this material together--rather than making wrong accusations.

best,

Art

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

Note that you provide a summary of your understanding of my posts, along with Peter K.'s, the good Professor and Mr. Simon's. The one thing you have not done is substantiate your understanding by quoting our positions. So, I take your posting as not being serious and/or as not being very honest. I prefer the former view, as I do not like to think ill of people.

Note: I know what apartheid is. I know what Jim Crow is. I supported, with my feet, Dr. King and heard him speak live. So, do not lecture me about racism.

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

You might consider following your own advice. You might even find my HAMAS quotes, now posted twice.

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

Lebanon is not remotely akin to Syria, as Lebanon has a unique history. It origins - or, to be more exact, recreation - begin with the horrible violence directed against the Maronites during the 19th Century. The people of peace along with the Druze managed to kill 40,000 of Maronites, basically at the direction of the Ottoman government.

Lebanon is very different from Syria, Jordan or what you would call historic Palestine.

Lebanon's population was very, very different and that other population, before the terrible civil war, played a dominant role in things. In fact, it is due to that difference in population that Lebanon is not part of Syria.

To be a bit blunt, the Maronite Christians are different than the religious group that dominates the rest of the region. As a result, Lebanon is not comparable to what existed in the waste land that was Israel before Jews showed up.

And, the evidence that the area was a wasteland is well shown by the likes of Mark Twain, who was a rather honest source of information.

You, however, are free to believe that Palestinian Arabs, who saw themselves as part of Greater Syria were somehow different from the rest of the region. The evidence does not remotely support that view or the view that Palestinian Arabs were in any way substantially different from Jordanian Arabs.

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

On rearming, I would suggest you read Martin Gilbert's The Appeasers. The time to rearm argument might make sense if the time had been used to rearm. But, that is not what occurred. And, the policy was not merely to bring peace. The policy was to make an alliance with Germany. And, according to Gilbert, Chamberlain's group just brushed aside evidence they did not like, as if it did not exist.

I do agree with you that 20/20 hindsight is always easy and that, as Peter C., notes understanding what made the Nazis tick was not self evident, at least in 1935. However, by the time of Munich, only the blind or, as with the British government, intentionally blind, did not understand.

Well, your argument regarding the Arab death cult, of which the Palestinian Arab version is an example and not an unique example, does not make a lot of sense. What are the outside pressures on Sudan? What are the outside pressures on Pakistan? What are the outside pressures on Saudi Arabia? Now, no doubt, there are pressures on each of these noted locales but, to be frank, very similar reactions are coming from people with very different circumstances raises important issues.

I already cited you the material from the HAMAS numerous times.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

I really do believe you're learning from my example, N. Jolly good work! Next week we will try subtlety and see how well that turns out.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

I've just reviewed the entire thread and my conclusion is simple. If Art, N, E, Yehudi, Peter Kovachev and Elliot represent the views of the Jewish majority in Israel to any degree, or even just a significant minority, I cannot imagine it being anything other than a fully apartheid society. It follows from this that the analysis, critique and conclusions offered by Gil Troy in his review of the title (!!!!!) of President Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid", are not only incorrect, but wrongheadedly so. Equally, it follows that the book's title truly demonstrates the reality of the Jewish State - the only state in the world, as far as I am aware, whose very constitution demands that it be organised on the basis of racial purity - and a state which relentlessly enforces apartheid and daily proves that it is constitutionally incapable of tolerating peace.

Merry Christmas, and come out fighting on Boxing Day.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

Thanks Art. I really appreciate the fact that you chose not to re-post my responses to your verbose flailings.

I think if anyone is interested in seeing them they will have to work a little bit and go into Edit and enter December 23 in Find/Change (or whatever the non-Firefox equivalent is) annd they will be able to luxuriate in learning which has a more than passing relation to reality. As the man said, the truth will set you free.

E. Simon -
12/23/2006

Of course not, Master of Evasion.

What it specifically does not help, and what it is not helped by, is your ahistorical conversion of the relationship between demographics and patterns of agriculture. It's that whole cause and effect thing that your disregard for logic makes challenging to illustrate to you. See, improvements in agricultural methods - at least in terms of absolute yield - lead to increases in population, and not the reverse. Increases in population might lead to more efficient agricultural practices only insofar as they lead to the availability of more sophisticated farming technology, which is moreso a function of capital, and not of population.

In now making your fancy philosophy about restraint instead of about imposition - (I didn't know that asserting responsibility over resolving a conflict was a form of imposition, by the way), I would just point out this is another example of your evasion, but that's not much surprise to anyone who's been following this. The only thing new here is that now you're redefining your own argument when it becomes inconvenient to you, and thus, evading your own words. Are muscular Christians always such intellectually dishonest liars? If so, I'll have to forego the conversion rites until you perfect the philosophy a bit more. Or perhaps you just need to perfect your own ability to recognize your own points a bit better.

And as this directly impacts whatever ability you have or lack to maintain your own intellectual integrity, your pomposity and sophistry, accordingly, will have not much more weight than as the empty and meaningless fluff I've always recognized them as, until you address it.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

Lebanon pre-1974?

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

E, there is a real difference between paranoia and prudence which may not be apparent to you.

As for muscular Christianity (and I see you're becoming a very likely convert), the whole point is restraint as opposed to imposition.

As for elephants, the practice of sophistry gives one a respect for the integrity of metaphor and my rigorous pomposity enables me to draw it to your attention - and insist you must do better in future- without having any great regard for any feelings you may have.

More seriously, you say "...you only seem to want to bitch about its use of water while sarcastically avoiding any clarification on whether or not agriculture and patterns of land use did improve, save for oblique and unsupported snipes that seem to indicate you think that it did not." Improvements in the patterns of agriculture are a function of demographics by definition, and if the demographics change, equally by definition, it is difficult, if not impossible, to measure "improvements" in the "patterns" of agricultural. My specific point is about overuse of aquifer water (which I note you concede) and the increased salinity of both the land and water sourced from the aquifer. A future Tacitus might well say of the Founders of the Jewish State, "they made a desert and called it peas".

Does this help?

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

Barrie, at the risk of posting too frequently, I have a better summary:

What we see in the terrible quotes listed above is grotesque British wishful thinking about the most militarized and warlike society on earth at the time (Nazi Germany) combined with condemning the victim of aggression and angrily demanding ever more self-destructive unilateral concessions from that victim (Czechoslovakia)--and ALL of this masquerading as British political SOPHISTICATION.

Barry, that's how I would describe your current position on the Middle East.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

It seems that N and Art still prefer to believe that shards of recycled gossip and lots of centre stage whining somehow enhances their ability to advance points which, hopefully, support their obviously flawed stance in this debate. It transforms history into fairy tale along with pantomime villains, pantalooned fools, naive onlookers and a zionist Dick Whittington in fishnet tights. So, if you’re sitting quietly, I’ll begin.

Hindsight is a wonderful teacher who always seems to have the right answers; however, experience should tell us that, over time, focus changes with circumstance, and the answers offered by hindsight change in tandem. History is a process of continuous revision. Now, for what they considered good reasons, Henderson, Inskip, Kennard and Chamberlain, and many others in many other countries, sought to maintain the peace of Europe and, thereby, the peace of the world. In the light of the many outcomes of WW2, was this a dishonourable or even, to use Art’s term, a naive objective? Take this summary of WW2 casualties given by Wikipedia:

“The total estimated human loss of life caused by World War II, irrespective of political alignment, was roughly 62 million people. The civilian toll was around 37 million, the military toll about 25 million. The Allies lost around 51 million people, and the Axis lost 11 million.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

Naive? In the light of events, no. A failed policy? Yes. Did it give the United Kingdom time to rearm against Hitler? Yes. Art’s account of Munich bad history? Well, yes - so partial that it can only have originated in the land of fairy tales in which we began. Oh, apropos Henderson on the Czechs, most Sudetan Germans seemed to consider the invasion, echoing some of N’s previous posts, nothing less than a liberation. What does sound more familiar to me is the notion that the past is usually a lot more complex than at first it appears and the lessons it provides us with are rarely clear, and if they do seem clear it’s good evidence that we’ve got it wrong.

As for Duff Cooper, he was Secretary of State for War from November, 1935 - May, 1937, from which position he spearheaded Britain's rearmament programme, and became First Lord of the Admiralty in May, 1937 and resigned when Chamberlain signed the Munich Agreement. The only reason I can imagine you quoted Duff Cooper is your unfamiliarity with your sources. Cooper was a wonderful and prolific diarist who held positions which evolved and changed over time on many of the issues which attracted his interest and students find it useful to rummage through his diaries to support diverse views of the period covering the First War to the Korean War. As well as being a splendid gossip - and all to serious purpose - Cooper was also a very sophisticated and complex political analyst whose thoughts on imperial strategy and the conduct of the Chamberlain Cabinet bear much deeper reflection than your quotation suggests you are able to give them.

“The spoilt child...the parallels in attitude are clear, are they not?” Well, that may be, but parallels between what, and which children? Or is this another riddle? And talking of the spoilt child, what about this as an example:

“Chamberlain's naiveté was terrible; but Barrie's is twice as bad, because there's a lot more evidence in front of him, and it's a naiveté that can't be covered over by his ineffable British snobbery and dismissiveness. (It's a particular British style of debate; I've seen it before, with British academics, and they use it especially when they have a weak evidentiary position.)” And, of course, when they happen to disagree with your ill-thought through arguments and offer alternative frames of reference for you to consider. For example, take the following statement made by you in the same post: “... you can't blame the Israelis without looking--and looking deeply--at the degenerate death-cult that is now Palestinian society in particular and Arab society in general.” Oh yes I can because, even on a relatively superficial analysis, I am inclined to the interim conclusion that, even if this “degenerate death-cult” were to exist, it is more likely to be caused by exogenous pressures on Palestinian (and Arab, if you will) society than by purely endogenous factors - otherwise, how otherwise can we account for the continued existence of this particular society? A weak-form death cult, perhaps, balancing, say, the Crucifixion with the Nativity? Which tends to point the finger at......? Still, I must admit, on second glance the research possibilities are intriguing. However, if you’d like to read an extraordinary (still memorable after more than forty years) and succinct discussion on the nature of death and dying in a post-Islamic culture, try and get hold of a copy of Arthur Koestler’s “Arrival and Departure” (1943). Interesting stuff, and he don’t make no cheap points, either.

Oh, and I still haven’t found N’s post giving chapter and verse of Hamas’ genocidal policy. More guidance, please.

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

To sum up, Barrie:

What we see in the terrible quotes above is British wishful thinking about the most militarized and warlike society on earth at the time (Nazi Germany) mixed with condemning the victim of Nazi aggression (Czechoslovakia)--and ALL of it masquerading as British political SOPHISTICATION.

That's how I would describe your current position on the Middle East, old boy.

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

Omar, you also have to accept that not all (or most) criticism of Arab culture is "racist"--that's a nice emotional debating point to deploy by you, and you hope it frightens everyone off from criticism, but when the truth is the truth, it's the truth, and crying "racism" in the face of legitimate criticism is intellectually ridiculous.

You also have to accept that Israel has produced many more cultural and scientific accomplishments, with no oil resources, than the Arabs; and that it has produced a modern, fully westernized and prosperous state. And it is legitimate to criticize the Arabs when have squandered their oil money and now take refuge in totalitarianian Islamofascism as a remedy (I mean medieval and regressive "total Sharia states": that's YOUR ideal, as I remember).

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

And since you couldn't find our discussion of Israel as Czechoslovakia, here's that as well, with some juicy quotes whose resemblance to your own position you will recognize:

by art eckstein on December 22, 2006 at 9:54 PM

The heart of the matter is this statement from Barrie Lambert: "People [i.e., Barrie] don't regard fundamentalist Islam as significantly [SIC] as you do."

That's it: Barrie thinks we're "demonizing" Islam, or Arafat or the Palestinians. All we're doing, Barrie, is reciting FACTS, which you then describe as "details".

1. When Chamberlain in autumn 1938 thought Hitler was a man with whom a deal could honorably be made, that was a terrible failure of imagination. History has condemned him for it. After 15 March 1939, he was condemning HIMSELF for it.
But when Barrie now downplays the aggressive and genocidal program of Islamic fundamentalism, that is a far worse failure of imagination, since

(a) We now have the example of the real Hitler in front of us, with Mein Kampf being the best-selling book among Muslims in the Middle East after the Koran, and

(b) We have the explicit Hamas genocidal program cited by N.F. to consider (poor naive Barrie demanded proof that any such thing existed, i.e., he just couldn't believe it, this didn't go with his worldview of innocent victimized Palestinians, and then, when presented with the evidence, he simply went silent on that topic), and
(c) we have the rantings of our own ineffable Omar Ibrahim Baker before us as well.

Chamberlain's naivete was terrible; but Barrie's is twice as bad, because there's a lot more evidence in front of him, and it's a naivete that can't be covered over by his ineffable British snobbery and dismissiveness. (It's a particular British style of debate; I've seen it before, with British academics, and they use it especially when they have a weak evidentiary position.)

2. Barrie dismisses my account of Munich as bad history. No, bad history is equating Ben Gurion with the Nazi and Holocaust facilitator Husseini, as he did. But for attacks on the Czech victims as the crisis worsened, just as I said, take a look at the correspondence of Neville Henderson, the British ambassador to Berlin (1937-1939). Examples: the Czechs are being "provocative" to Germany (22 June 1938); "The Czechs are a pigheaded race, and Benes not the least pigheaded among them" (26. July 1938). Sound familiar, Barrie?
Sorry, old man, to give you chapter and verse. I know it confuses you.

The most outrageous comment, though, was his insinuation that we on this blog would demonize a Palestinian leader "even if he came from the Salvation Army." I think Barrie knows himself that this statement is maliciously untrue, and that those who believe Israel is a good polity, and certainly a better one than those that surround it, would like nothing better for their to be an interlocutor for peace.

At the present, Barrie, there isn't one. And you can't blame the Israelis without looking--and looking deeply--at the degenerate death-cult that is now Palestinian society in particular and Arab society in general. (And you know why I'm using that terminology, Barrie: who is it, again, who jails those who commit mass murder against civilians, and who is it who names streets and squares after them? Or is that profound cultural divide just another "detail" to you?)

by art eckstein on December 22, 2006 at 10:35 PM
Oh, and Barrie, HERE'S another corker:

Sir Thomas Walker Hobart Inskip, Minister for the coordination of Defense, 1936-1939, responding to those who warned after Munich that the Hitler government was bent on much worse aggression:

"GERMANOPHOBES!"
(28 January, 1939--a bit over a month before Hitler marched into Prague)

Now THERE's a phrase that ought to sound familiar, to Barrie. I'll give you a hint: the current and hauntingly similar term of art begins with "I" and has an "a" and an "m" in it.

(28 January, 1939--a bit over a month before Hitler marched into Prague).

(#103453)
by N. Friedman on December 22, 2006 at 11:33 PM
Professor,

You are at your best in the above two posts.

I do agree with you about the 1938 analogy. But, the structure of the society that has reverse up and down needs to be understood in the "big" plans of France to use the EU to recreate France's Muslim empire as a counterweight to the US, to secure oil contracts and gain lucrative business (e.g. humongous construction projects and technology transfer). For this, the Europeans sold their souls. On this, Professor Richard Rubinstein and Bat Ye'or are surely correct.

(#103474)
by art eckstein on December 23, 2006 at 10:53 AM
N.F., I notice that Barrie has replied to some other postings, but not yet to ours above.

Here's a couple of other corkers:

Alfred Duff Cooper, a Cabinet member (Admirality), during the first German threat to Czechoslovakia: "The entire Cabinet is anti-CZECH" (22 May, 1938)

and:

Sir Howard Kennard, British ambassador to Warsaw, to Lord Halifax (Foreign Secretary), 1 Oct. 1938 (after the betrayal of Czechoslovakia): who cares, as long as it brings peace? After all, Czechoslavkia was merely "the spoilt child of the Allies and Geneva" [i.e., the League of Nations].

The spoilt child...the parallels in attitude are clear, are they not?

(#103478)
by N. Friedman on December 23, 2006 at 11:14 AM
Art,

There are a lot of parallels. And, I might add, it is not only the crude language against the Czechs, but the peace in my time rhetoric and the belief that there was an alliance, of sorts, to be had with the Germans.

(#103485)
by art eckstein on December 23, 2006 at 12:30 PM
As to your first point, hostility to the victimized Czechs for making a fuss:

In May 1938, negotiations failed between the Czech govt headed by Edouad Benes and the Sudeten Germans headed by Henlein. Henlein, we now know, was under orders from Hitler not to come to an agreement. Nevertheless, the British cabinet blamed the Czechs for not conceding enough, and concentrated on the alleged personality defects of Benes
See R.A.C. Parker, Chamberlain and Appeasement (1993): 147-48.

And then, there's THIS, as to your second point above, N.F.:

Chamberlain's conclusions about his meetings with Hitler at Godesberg , Sept. 25, 1938:

"Herr Hitler had a narrow mind and was violently prejudiced on certain subjects [yes...], but he owuld not deliberately deceive a man whom he respected and with whom he had been in negotiation, and he was sure that Herr Hitler now felt some respect for him...He thought that he had now established an influence over Herr Hitler, and that the latter trusted him and was wiling to work with him..."

(Cabinet minutes, quoted in Parker, 169)

E. Simon -
12/23/2006

You are just as paranoid of the existence of other countries in the Middle East as Barrie Lambert is of saying topical.

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

Except in the case of Israel, it's the truth.

No one has conceded anything, Omar. You just can't stand to hear about Israeli achievements (accomplished w/o all that oil money that the Arabs have squandered to produce nothing).

I'm not the only one who says this. The leading Arab poet, "Adonis", whom I have quoted last week, is far harsher on the Arabs and their self-pity and their failed culture and their hostility to freedom than I ever have been. I'm not saying that the Arabs should accept full responsibility for the catastrophe here, but the Arabs just can't accept responsibility for anything: all they do is whine about their grievances, when the Israelis accepted 200,000 more refugees from MUSLIM lands alone than the Arabs have with not assimilating the Palestinians but leaving them in their camps. Frankly, it's a childish position.

E. Simon -
12/23/2006

Oh, and Barrie, I apologize if the humor in the paragraph that was lost on you threw you off from the main point I was making. I think it was more a sarcastic exercise in existentialist cause-and-effect, not unlike the kind sometimes employed, if I recall correctly, by Douglas Adams - who is hopefully popular enough on your side of the pond to gain familiarity beyond readers of science fiction, or beyond readers of science, as the case may become if we continue having to hash out the water thing here.

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

As to your first point, hostility to the victimized Czechs for making a fuss:

In May 1938, negotiations failed between the Czech govt headed by Edouad Benes and the Sudeten Germans headed by Henlein. Henlein, we now know, was under orders from Hitler not to come to an agreement. Nevertheless, the British cabinet blamed the Czechs for not conceding enough, and concentrated on the alleged personality defects of Benes
See R.A.C. Parker, Chamberlain and Appeasement (1993): 147-48.

And then, there's THIS, as to your second point above, N.F.:

Chamberlain's conclusions about his meetings with Hitler at Godesberg , Sept. 25, 1938:

"Herr Hitler had a narrow mind and was violently prejudiced on certain subjects [yes...], but he owuld not deliberately deceive a man whom he respected and with whom he had been in negotiation, and he was sure that Herr Hitler now felt some respect for him...He thought that he had now established an influence over Herr Hitler, and that the latter trusted him and was wiling to work with him..."

(Cabinet minutes, quoted in Parker, 169)

E. Simon -
12/23/2006

As it stands, you only seem to want to bitch about Israel's use of water while sarcastically avoiding any clarification on whether or not agriculture and patterns of land use did improve, save for oblique and unsupported snipes that seem to indicate you think that it did not. If it did however, then it seems somewhat stupid to complain about there somehow being less water available for drinking on a per person basis, as population increases generally tend to follow agricultural development in any case. As does the technology that leads to more efficient use of water resources - another point lost in your incoherent demonizing.

As for my own quantity of brain cells, I know not an exact count or number, but with efficiency now becoming the theme of this post, I can guarantee that I can use them better than you can yours. Which leads us to Israel's problems regarding increasing salinity in their aquifers - an issue over which I have faith that if any solution could come (and one likely will, Lambert's retrograde belly-aching notwithstanding), Israel will find one. The Saudis to their south have population levels "unsustainable" by what water is available to them, so they desalinize it from the even saltier ocean that surrounds them. Expensive, but not a case against them having a population in need of water. Your ill-informed complaints against Israel's use of water are similarly, no case against them having developed their own agriculture, but then again, I remind you that logical argumentation is not your strong suit.

As it stands, your only point comes across as a snide, uppity imperialist's complaint against other countries developing economically. N. and Art should note that this Barrie guy is basically reduced here to scolding Israel for developing agriculturally. What's next, a protest against the exploitation that comes from road-side falafel stands? There is nothing too small for this classist to demonize.

E. Simon -
12/23/2006

Ah, Barrie, the second paragraph actually belongs as a response to your pompous, retrograde belly-aching about water use below. The second point here is actually must simpler; the first clause contains it completely: physical strength has its limits. That you do not address this truism when advocating "muscular Christianity" says much about the mind of a man whose paranoia over crossing libel laws prevents him from carrying ideas to their logical conclusions and limitations. The rejoinder is rather simple, Oh Eloquent One. What do the muscular Christians do once their power or strength to implement the proper course of action is exhausted? Or is this just a version of some class-based thinking, which denies both that everyone has responsibilities to themselves, as well as the fact that regardless of what position of physical superiority you ascribe to the muscular Christians, physical strength indeed has its limits in imposing just solutions onto the (physical) "inferiors", as it were?

E. Simon -
12/23/2006

If the "elephant in the room" idiom is unfamiliar to you, it has to do with ignoring things you'd rather not address. I'm not sure if that was stated eloquently enough to grab the attention of a man as addicted to sophistry as you are, but hopefully you can come down off of your pedastal long enough to at least pretend that the point is clear.

As for your second point of criticism, you might heed your own advice and clarify whether Israel's agricultural development led to any productive gains or not. As it stands, you only seem to want to bitch about its use of water while sarcastically avoiding any clarification on whether or not agriculture and patterns of land use did improve, save for oblique and unsupported snipes that seem to indicate you think that it did not. If it did however, then it seems somewhat stupid to complain about there somehow being less water available for drinking on a per person basis, as population increases generally tend to follow agricultural development in any case. As does the technology that leads to more efficient use of water resources - another point lost in your incoherent demonizing.

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

Having debated with Peter C. at length, I kind of doubt that he agrees with you.

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

Here is the location: (#103395) at http://hnn.us/comments/103395.html where I wrote, in pertinent part:

"As for the HAMAS's position on Jews, see their charter. Some of the quotes of note from that infamous document - and some are not listed as evidence of genocidal intent but merely to give a flavor of the document -:

Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

*************

For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails. Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long: “Allah has decreed: Lo! I very shall conquer, I and my messenger, lo! Allah is strong, almighty.”

*****************

But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

****************

Within the circle of the conflict with world Zionism, the Hamas regards itself the spearhead and the avant-garde. It joins its efforts to all those who are active on the Palestinian scene, but more steps need to be taken by the Arab and Islamic peoples and Islamic associations throughout the Arab and Islamic world in order to make possible the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war. “We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loves not corrupters.” Sura V (Al-Ma’idah—the Table spread), verse 64.

I stand by my comment about the genocidal position of the HAMAS. And note: this does not include statements by their clerics and activists which are direct and blunt on the matter. For this, see the collection on the MEMRI website."

Note the part about wanting to implement Allah's promise including what follows it from a well known Hadith.

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

How about making a real argument, citing to real facts.

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Art,

There are a lot of parallels. And, I might add, it is not only the crude language against the Czechs, but the peace in my time rhetoric and the belief that there was an alliance, of sorts, to be had with the Germans.

art eckstein -
12/23/2006

N.F., I notice that Barrie has replied to some other postings, but not yet to ours above.

Here's a couple of other corkers:

Alfred Duff Cooper, a Cabinet member (Admirality), during the first German threat to Czechoslovakia: "The entire Cabinet is anti-CZECH" (22 May, 1938)

and:

Sir Howard Kennard, British ambassador to Warsaw, to Lord Halifax (Foreign Secretary), 1 Oct. 1938 (after the betrayal of Czechoslovakia): who cares, as long as it brings peace? After all, Czechoslavkia was merely "the spoilt child of the Allies and Geneva" [i.e., the League of Nations].

The spoilt child...the parallels in attitude are clear, are they not?

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Omar,

Some Palestinian Arab contributions, other than shahids?

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

How do you explain that none of Israel's neighbors have land that really bloom? Do you think that Palestinian Arabs were an exception to the region? Do you think that Mark Twain's description of the land is wrong? If so, how about some facts instead of stuff that sounds made up ad hoc.

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Omar,

Israel's birth came about from the country's Jewish population being attacked. Had that not occurred and had the Arab population been mature enough, which they were not, they could have built a country together, as the Jewish population proposed. Instead, the Arab side attacked but lost the war.

N. Friedman -
12/23/2006

Barrie,

If our arguments are wrong, you need to provide evidence along with arguments to explain why. Otherwise, my dear chap, all you are doing is stating that you disagree, which tells us nothing.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

I think Omar's got you dead to right on that one, lads.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/23/2006

Clarke already expressed his view that some politicians (Hillary Clinton, Joseph Lieberman) should be put on trial for having a political position opposed to Clarkeist one. In addition he doesn't believe in the right of black people to the best defense and a fair trial. His support for the "numerus clausus" for Jews on hnn.us is another proof of his bigotry.
Much ado about a bigot!

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

"No. Prior to work by Jews, the land resembled the land in the surrounding countries. Jews made the land bloom. Prior to that, it was, as Twain noted, basically a wasteland, just as Syria and Jordan still are." This has always been a puerile argument, not least because it is untrue in two repects: first, the land bloomed (an astute Joycean reference, perhaps?) long before Jewish colonisation began; and second, it bloomed for the Palestinians on the basis of environmental sustainability (a modish idea, certainly, but true nonetheless).

As for E, we have come to expect no less than the higheest attainable levels of semi-intelligible gibberish - and even that, barely - and he does nothing to disappoint us:

"Also notice the incoherence of Barrie Lambert's lambasting of agricultural development at the apparent expense of the quantity of available drinking water. In which history course do they teach about how agriculture is what led to the growth of populations in the first place, while Barrie Lambert laments the loss of some of that water for a population that was too small prior to its reverse-desertification to drink it all in the first place? Plants - greedy for water - make the people who survive by eating them, greedy for making more thirsty people. Damn plants! Damn them!"

A scandalous case of the bent pot with a hole in its base calling the graceful diamond encrusted ebony statue with neat gold trim black if ever I saw one. If nothing else, it gives E an opportunity to offer us a masterclass in how best to demonstrate total ignorance in the most thoroughly thought-free, incoherent, slobbering way possible. I know it's asking a lot but, at the risk of total mental breakdown, perhaps E might apply a couple of his obviously increasingly isolated brain cells to the problem of how best to deal with the accretion (and rapidly rising levels) of salt in the aquifer and on the land which Israel's inappropriate and opportunistic agricultural practices have led to? N might also try thinking through that one - just for kicks, like - as well.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

"Art's point that the 1938 analogy of blaming the victim for not committing suicide is exactly on point".

Yes. but it is a purely rhetorical device and completely irrelevant to the argument, as many of the points made by Art and you are. Essentially this statement is designed to support the kind of war you wish to fight, and you wish others to believe you fight, but it does not in any way, shape or form describe the war you actually are fighting, and which the rest of us can clearly see without reference to a distracting analogue.

The problem you face with the way in which you both argue is that you seem to think that a barrage of (usually unrelated) detail means that (probability being what it is) some of your points may well turn out to be correct and that this will strengthen support for your general thesis. From a more realistic point of view, the psychological process of perception being what it is, it's not the "hits" that count, but the misses. So much of what you say is untrue, or distorted to fit your case, that the more realistic, convincing and valuable arguments you make - or should be making, but which in many instances can only dimly be inferred from what you do say - are easily discounted as more special pleading, which is, I think, a very great pity. In a world which hinges on goodwill and trust, it is all too easy to lose your central argument by default because of a cavalier disregard for truth coupled with chronic over-enthusiasm and, as a general point, I think this has become the Israeli lobby's key political problem. We're learning to stop listening and, as I say, it is a very great pity.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

Hi N, if think an error crept into this post:

"Barrie,

That is about as lame as it gets."

Of course, I realise that you meant to say: "That is about as good as it gets", and I am truly grateful for this mark of your appreciation. Many thanks for your kindness. I think it is a strong sign that you may well be on the way to becoming a better person.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

Point of information: I think E mistakes the nature of "muscular Christianity". It's really about eating lots of greens and being both equitable AND charitable (in the Pauline sense) in all our dealings in the world, and especially with the weaker amongst our brethren. And it adapts easily and well to the secular.

E's elephant metaphor lost me as I dare say it did him. E, if you ever find your way back could you please post the directions on this site for me?

And I can't even think of a way to even begin clarifying your penultimate sentence: "Further, physical strength has its limits - even when it comes to creating these morally perfect totalities which Lambert fantasizes, unless one believes it can use such earthly physical prowess to summon divine powers" - weird. or what? I'm more an Introduction to Philosophy PHIL 153 Kantian myself: man as crooked timber, and all that, don't y'know, so what you appear to be saying is all a bit irrelevant to me. But if it makes you happy to say it... what the hell! Go right ahead and say it. And again, if you wish. After all, it is Christmas.

Barrie Lambert -
12/23/2006

Thank you Peter K Clarke. At last, a point of view expressed on HNN which I, and all other reasonable men (and women, of course), can agree with. Perhaps Santa has come a little earlier this year.....

E. Simon -
12/23/2006

Also notice the incoherence of Barrie Lambert's lambasting of agricultural development at the apparent expense of the quantity of available drinking water. In which history course do they teach about how agriculture is what led to the growth of populations in the first place, while Barrie Lambert laments the loss of some of that water for a population that was too small prior to its reverse-desertification to drink it all in the first place? Plants - greedy for water - make the people who survive by eating them, greedy for making more thirsty people. Damn plants! Damn them!

E. Simon -
12/23/2006

A man who says: "Good thing you've got a stockpile of nuclear weapons ready to threaten the water supplies of Europe", even if tongue in cheek, is probably willing to believe anything about Israel. His thoughts are interesting and intriguing, but ultimately too ham-handed when it comes to the side he demonizes and too far-fetched when it comes to the side he champions. Taking him seriously on these things is like following a dog who chases his own tail. Taking it as entertainment just exemplifies how disconnected he is from the reality of the situation.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

No. Prior to work by Jews, the land resembled the land in the surrounding countries. Jews made the land bloom. Prior to that, it was, as Twain noted, basically a wasteland, just as Syria and Jordan still are.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Professor,

You are at your best in the above two posts.

I do agree with you about the 1938 analogy. But, the structure of the society that has reverse up and down needs to be understood in the "big" plans of France to use the EU to recreate France's Muslim empire as a counterweight to the US, to secure oil contracts and gain lucrative business (e.g. humongous construction projects and technology transfer). For this, the Europeans sold their souls. On this, Professor Richard Rubinstein and Bat Ye'or are surely correct.

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

Oh, and Barrie, HERE'S another corker:

Sir Thomas Walker Hobart Inskip, Minister for the coordination of Defense, 1936-1939, responding to those who warned after Munich that the Hitler government was bent on much worse aggression:

"GERMANOPHOBES!"
(28 January, 1939--a bit over a month before Hitler marched into Prague)

Now THERE's a phrase that ought to sound familiar, to Barrie. I'll give you a hint: the current and hauntingly similar term of art begins with "I" and has an "a" and an "m" in it.

(28 January, 1939--a bit over a month before Hitler marched into Prague).

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

The heart of the matter is this statement from Barrie Lambert: "People [i.e., Barrie] don't regard fundamentalist Islam as significantly [SIC] as you do."

That's it: Barrie thinks we're "demonizing" Islam, or Arafat or the Palestinians. All we're doing, Barrie, is reciting FACTS, which you then describe as "details".

1. When Chamberlain in autumn 1938 thought Hitler was a man with whom a deal could honorably be made, that was a terrible failure of imagination. History has condemned him for it. After 15 March 1939, he was condemning HIMSELF for it.
But when Barrie now downplays the aggressive and genocidal program of Islamic fundamentalism, that is a far worse failure of imagination, since

(a) We now have the example of the real Hitler in front of us, with Mein Kampf being the best-selling book among Muslims in the Middle East after the Koran, and

(b) We have the explicit Hamas genocidal program cited by N.F. to consider (poor naive Barrie demanded proof that any such thing existed, i.e., he just couldn't believe it, this didn't go with his worldview of innocent victimized Palestinians, and then, when presented with the evidence, he simply went silent on that topic), and
(c) we have the rantings of our own ineffable Omar Ibrahim Baker before us as well.

Chamberlain's naivete was terrible; but Barrie's is twice as bad, because there's a lot more evidence in front of him, and it's a naivete that can't be covered over by his ineffable British snobbery and dismissiveness. (It's a particular British style of debate; I've seen it before, with British academics, and they use it especially when they have a weak evidentiary position.)

2. Barrie dismisses my account of Munich as bad history. No, bad history is equating Ben Gurion with the Nazi and Holocaust facilitator Husseini, as he did. But for attacks on the Czech victims as the crisis worsened, just as I said, take a look at the correspondence of Neville Henderson, the British ambassador to Berlin (1937-1939). Examples: the Czechs are being "provocative" to Germany (22 June 1938); "The Czechs are a pigheaded race, and Benes not the least pigheaded among them" (26. July 1938). Sound familiar, Barrie?
Sorry, old man, to give you chapter and verse. I know it confuses you.

The most outrageous comment, though, was his insinuation that we on this blog would demonize a Palestinian leader "even if he came from the Salvation Army." I think Barrie knows himself that this statement is maliciously untrue, and that those who believe Israel is a good polity, and certainly a better one than those that surround it, would like nothing better for their to be an interlocutor for peace.

At the present, Barrie, there isn't one. And you can't blame the Israelis without looking--and looking deeply--at the degenerate death-cult that is now Palestinian society in particular and Arab society in general. (And you know why I'm using that terminology, Barrie: who is it, again, who jails those who commit mass murder against civilians, and who is it who names streets and squares after them? Or is that profound cultural divide just another "detail" to you?)

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

Art, I've searched and kind find it, but its reached the point when I can find some things once, sometimes not even by accident, and then I can't find them a second time. Please direct me to NFs "genocidal" statement of hamas policy. I seem to remember checking it out earlier and rejecting it because it obviously didn't have the evidential quality N (and now you) suggest it has.

Anyway, my bedtime and I can taste the Horlicks already if I close my eyes for a moment.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

DOES YOUR ASSUMPTION OF THE PALESTINIANS' LESSER DEGREE OF RESPONSIBILITY EQUATE TO NO RESPONSIBILITY? OR DOES IT LEAST IMPLY THE RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCEPT AN EQUITABLE, REASONABLE OFFER BY ISRAEL, PRETENDING THAT YOU WOULD EVER CARE TO DEFINE WHAT ONE WOULD LOOK LIKE? OR DO THE PALESTINIANS' MAXIMAL (OR EVEN MINIMAL) DEMANDS AUTOMATICALLY DEFINE THE DEFAULT POSITION INSOFAR AS A MORAL THRESHOLD, REGARDLESS OF WHAT THEY CONSIST OF?

TOUGH QUESTIONS FOR A GOOD CHRISTIAN TO ANSWER, BUT NOT FOR A THOUGHTFUL ONE TO ANSWER.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS, BARRRIE

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

Yep, that's pretty delusional now.

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

Art, you say,

"Dear Barrie,

"Very weak reply to support an untenable hypothesis--that the Israels can deliver peace on their own (!!!). The Israelis, in desperation, tried the policies you mention--and the result was that (a) southern Lebanon was turned illegally into one giant concrete fortress from which missiles shielded by civilians could be--and eventually were-- showered on northern pre-1967 Israel; YES, BUT RETAINING SOME DISPUTED LAND AND NOT FORMALLY NEGOTIATING A PEACE. YOU, IN FACT, STATE THE REASONS FOR A FORMAL PRACE TREATY. NOW YOU'RE TRYING TO BLAME THE LEBANESE FOR ISRAELI STUPIDIY (b) the withdrawal from Gaza led to Gaza, too, becoming a base from which hundreds of missiles have been fired into pre-1967 Israel." AND LED TO GAZA BECOMING, IN THE CLASSIC SENSE, A CONCENTRATION CAMP, STARVED OF FOOD AND FUNDS AND ITS GOVERNMENT SUBVERTED BY THE ISRAELIS, SO COULD YOU REALLY EXPECT THEM TO DO ANYTHING ELSE. YOU HAVE THE LEGAL RESPONSIBLITIES OF AN OCCUPYING AUTHORITY WHILST ENSURING GAZA COLLAPSES INTO CIVIL WAR. YOU MUST LOVE DRAGONS' TEETH VERY MUCH.

"It is simply outrageous for you to say that the Israels can deliver peace by themselves, without an interlocutor, and facing people who use every Israeli concession to build bases from which to mount ever larger attacks. It is anti-historical as well as immoral to place the burden totally on Israel when Israel has no interlocutor for peace." THEN WHY ADOPT AND START TO IMPLEMENT A POLICY OF UNILATERAL WITHDRAWAL WITHOUT EVEN NEGOTIATING AN EFFECTIVE CEASEFIRE, LET ALONE A PEACE? CRIMINAL IN THESE AND ANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES. A DISPICABLE AND EVIL ACT IN MY PERSONAL VIEW

"You don't approach this with cool strategic sensibility, Barrie. You claimed do to that, above, and I was startled. On the contrary, your writing quivers with moral indignation at. the Israelis--not at those who attack them." WONDER AND AMAZEMENT AT THE STRATEGIC INCOMPETENCE OF THE ISRAELIS WHICH MAKES ME WONDER WHETHER THE STATE OF ISRAEL, AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED, CAN, SHOULD AND WILL SURVIVE. I CAN'T SEE THINGS GETTING MUCH BETTER AND I DON'T THINK THE PRESENT STATE IS BUILT FOR SURVIVAL. MY MORAL INDIGNATION TENDS TO BE RESERVED FOR THE WAY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN DAMAGED BY THE BEHAVIOUR OF THE IDF, AND THAT THE PALESTINIANS HAVE BEEN FORCED INTO IN ASYMETRIC WAR IN WHICH MARTYRDOM IS THE WEAPON OF THE POOR AND THE WEAK.

"The Israelis aren't saints (DO YOU HAVE SAINTS? I THOUGHT THIS WAS A NO NO?); no established polity in our international world is, let alone one that has to survive in the violence of the Middle East. But you have never said a specific word about Palestinian or Arab responsibility for this situation. Your anger goes in only one direction. Given Palestinian and Arab actions, that is truly perverse." I AM AWARE OF THE NECESSITY OF ACCOUNTING FOR PALESTINIAN OR ARAB RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE VIOLENCE, BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF A PALESTINIAN STATE AND THE PRESENSE OF A VERY POWERFUL ISRAELI STATE, THE IDF, NOT TO MENTION YOU AND YOUR BUDDIES TO FIGHT THE ANTI-PALESTINIAN CAUSE, ITS USEFUL IF I RETREAT TO THE BALANCED POSITION OFFERED BY MUSCULAR CHRISTIANITY: THE GREATER THE POWER, THE GREATER THE GUILT.

"What I think is going on is this: the European elites are unwilling to face the ugly specter of resurgent fundamentalist Islam, not only in the Middle East but in the immigrant communities they have foolishly let into their own countries and have not assimilated. Rather than face this world crisis, and the measures of self-defense it calls forth, they blame the Jews." I SUSPECT PEOPLE BLAME THE JEWS FOR THE REASONS GIVEN ABOVE. THEY BLAME FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAM FOR OTHER REASONS BUT THEY CERTAINLY DON'T REGARD IT AS SIGNIFICANTLY AS YOU DO. AND IT'S USEFUL TO REMEMBER THAT WE "FOOLISHLY" LET JEWS FLEEING THE TSARIST PROGROMS INTO THE UK, AND EVEN MORE FOOLISHLY, INTO PALESTINE.

"The parallel is obvious, I'm sorry to say: in early autumn 1938, the British govt, when about to sell out Czechoslovakia to Hitler, turned against the Czechs when they balked. The Czechs weren't angels either. But rather than confront the REAL problem in the region, and the sacrificies that might be necessary to stop it--namely, Hitlerian expansion--the British govt blamed the Czechs, the victims, for not wanting to commit national suicide. Eventually, the British and the French in fact forced them to commit national suicide,and Chamberlain happily proclaimed "peace in our time.". A year later, Britian and France faced the same problem over Poland, as I remember. It was too late for the Czechs." BAD HISTORY, WORSE RHETORIC. BEST TO IGNORE IT AND LESSEN YOUR EMBARRASSMENT.

That's what I think is going on here. The Euro-elites do not want to face the larger problem, so they blame the current main victim of the problem, ever more bitterly, for disturbing their afternoon tea. In the end, they will be willing to sacrifice that victim, and sacrifice that victim completely. And to soothe their conscience, they will blame that victim, because that's a lot easier than facing up to the real problem until they have to. VERY WHINY CONCLUSION WHICH IS SURPRISINGLY CONTENT FREE. THE EURO-ELITES TEND TO SUPPORT ISRAEL, IT'S THE NON-ELITES WHO DON'T. THE ELITES ARE SLOWLY FALLING IN LINE WITH THEIR ELECTORATES BECAUSE IT IS JUST SO HARD TO EXPLAIN ISRAEL AWAY NOWADAYS.

Keep cool 'til the New Year.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

At the expense of de-secularizing the American public school system more quickly than even the most theocratically-inclined American interest groups would hope for, I am wondering if this "muscular Christianity" which Lambert advocates, would - along with automatically bundling physical strength with moral purpose - also bundle physical weakness with moral rectitude, since that's the elephant all over this room whose trunk he's been stuffing in his pocket since Day #1 while denying the rest of it exists.

Further, physical strength has its limits - even when it comes to creating these morally perfect totalities which Lambert fantasizes, unless one believes it can use such earthly physical prowess to summon divine powers.

Lambert will have to clarify.

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

"The comparison between their achievements and those of their neighbors is startling."

Yes, Art, the Jews have made a desert bloom, as it did before they marked out Palestine as their colonial victim, but at the expense of traditional intensive agricultural water use, draining aquifers and creating the need to systematically steal water from the Palestinians, now and throughout the future, as long as Israel exists.

What happens when you crash through Palestine's human carrying capacity? Put the onus on the Palestinians and let them die of thirst? Then start regional Water Wars against your neighbours to make sure that the demands of the Jewish population of the Jewish State state is sated? Good thing you've got a stockpile of nuclear weapons ready to threaten the water supplies of Europe.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/22/2006

None, but there were so many different threads up above that even I had trouble finding out who was saying what, and I wanted to make sure you didn't miss something important (assuming that you think anything we say here is important...).

best,

Art

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

But Art what's the relevance to this section of the tread?

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

That is about as lame as it gets.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

I am curious to know whether Peter understands that Dershowitz helps the cause of a just prosecution of the accused in America, by requiring that the government abide by the strictest standards of procuring, assembling and presenting evidence. I await Peter's credentials - if he chooses to present them - in constitutional theory and rules of procedure in answering this question. But since he likes to spout on about things just to sound important, whether he knows what he's saying or not, I expect he won't. Like always.

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

Here's another example of your argument-technique that bothers me:

When N.F. claimed that Hamas had a genocidal ideology, you indignantly demanded proof. Now the point of demanding proof was, presumably, that if proof were shown to you, that would require you to rethink your moralizing position (if not your strategic position), at least somewhat.

Well, N.F. provided you with some disgraceful statements from official Hamas sources.

Your response: silence.

Not cricket, old boy.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

Well, he left out my point that it was likely disadvantageous, because Britain's unusual libel laws have everything to do with discourse, and discourse is what we are herein engaging, not evading discourse - which is of course what our friend excels in, and what we would expect out of the legal culture so described.

Being polite might be a useful skill, even in addressing which angle to approach in order to facilitate the resolution of a conflict. But it is difficult to see how encouraging the evasion of rather than directly addressing arguments is, on balance, useful to critical reasoning or intelligent discourse.

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

Art and N, you're both trying to win brownie points for Israel by, for instance, praising Bandar's judgement of Arafat (talking of Bandar's judgement, I wonder why ever Turki resigned the Ambassadorship like that?) because you need to demonise Arafat, as you will any possible successor whether he/she is produced by Fatah, Hamas or the Salvation Army. Another way to look at it is Arafat's mistake but Israel's guilt.

We used to call it muscular Christianity when I was a schoolboy and it meant that the strong MUST go out of their way to protect the weak, and NEVER bully. Snd you're right N, America has been walking down the wrong path for a long time, but see how prepared American's are to shift direction when they see they're headed straight into a swamp and there's quicksand in every direction but back - like Iraq, and like Israel too soon. Before you know it, America will be another Europe and who knows, the US fashion for Evangelical Christianity my well take account of the Social Gospel once again, and the ideals of muscular Christianity will be something for young Americans to aspire too.

However, a lot of both of your remarks are not relevant to this the original article nor the book it considered. Some of those who took the book at face value recognised that apartheid is a term which does fairly describe Israel's internal arrangement within the 1948 borders, the 1949, 1967 and 1973 occupied territories: what else can it be described other than as apartheid in a Jewish State where membership is, for most part based bloodline, religious background, etc, and which peaks with the Jewish right of return; yet at the same time fails to have and honor an equal PALESTINIAN RIGHT OF RETURN, WHILST its government is best described as a racially limited popularly elected dictatatorship which relies, absolutely on the Jewish Defence Force as it central and unifying institution.

And to quote Art, "If Israel goes down, it will be partly because of people such as yourself who are engaged in 1938-type condemning of the victim in order to avoid facing the larger problem: Islamic fundamentalism of the most repulsive, retrograde and violent kind." Well, no, it will go down because Israel missed it's moment and people like you let it happen.

I remember one point by Arafat: the Palestinian must never be the Jew's Jew; nor the Jew the Palestinian's Palestinian, and that seems something that both Israelis, Palestinians and New York Jews, etc, might seek to build on.

Anyway, it'd been a long day, and the Christmas break is now on us. Au revoir.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

Petey, so you have a problem w/Dershowitz not because he's a defense attorney who provided a case for O.J. Simpson's constitutionally protected right to a legal defense, but because he was a hypocrite. Before it seemed you were accusing him of opportunism. Why don't you make up your mind? Are all defense lawyers hypocrites? What was hypocritical, and since when does being a Boy Scout have anything to do with making a convincing case against Carter? Dershowitz never said that other famous legal scholars couldn't widely publish a case for his own hypothetical defense in the event of his being accused of any hypothetical alleged double-murder. You don't even know what you're saying, but as usual, your Sir Lancelot/Knights Templar complex is looking a bit more Quixotic (as in the very Don Quixote of similarly antiquated values and misplaced Dudley Doright inclinations) with every hypocritical publication you issue. Not everything is a moral issue. Some things are actually intellectual issues. For Christmas I'd be willing to find a way to teach you the difference, since you confuse both those all the time.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

And my vision is better than 20/20.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

You're so slick, P. Where's the hypocrisy in a legal scholar, who happens to be a brilliant defense attorney, making the case for someone's legal defense? Try wiggling your way out of giving a straightforward answer to that one, Greasy P. I'm sure you won't disappoint.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

You're so slick, P. Where's the hypocrisy in a legal scholar, who happens to be a brilliant defense attorney, making the case for someone's legal defense? Try wiggling your way out of giving a straightforward answer to that one, Greasy P. I'm sure you won't disappoint.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/22/2006

Barrie, you offered a defense of Arafat which you would never have offered if the Israelis had been the ones refusing.

Bandar is a Saudi Prince, from a country where Jews are not allowed; you ought to take his judgment against Arafat seriously.

You present a moralizing argument, indignant towards Israel, and then,when your moralizing argument is shown up as blinkered in the extreme, instead of acknowledging this, and acknowledging the implications of what we have proven, you then shift the ground to "grand strategy" (well, so what if Arafat was a malevolent Nazi and not a peacemaker, Israel is going down, so it doesn't deserve support for THAT reason).

As for the decine of Israel's reputation, I've offered an explanation for the decline of Israeli reputation among the Euro-elites: the Czechoslovakia in 1938 syndrome. You're part of it. I note once again that rather than offering cool strategic analysis (which you occasionally claim to do), your comments on Israel quiver with indignation--Israel "the tawdry racist bully" (a view you ascribe technically to others but which you have made abundantly clear you agree with)--the kind of indignation you NEVER lavish on the barbarous Palestinians.

It's perverse. You should accept that Omar means what he says, that he represents at the least a very large segment of the Islamic world, and ADJUST your moral condemnations accordingly. I know that we all find doing such adjusting difficult, but the "details" as you contemptuously call them have piled up against you to such an extent that you really should consider doing the adjustment.

Partly the decline in Israel's reputation has to do not with anythign Israel does but with the Left being so in love with "anti-imperialism" (and I mean those scare quotes) that ANY enemy of the West and Israel wins their approval, even Hezbollah with its fascist salutes, derogation of women's rights, virulent anti-semitism, and use of civilians to cover their terrorist tactics. As Judith Butler at Berkeley said in September, "It is important to note that Hezbollah is part of the International Left". Grotesque.

If Israel goes down, it will be partly because of people such as yourself who are engaged in 1938-type condemning of the victim in order to avoid facing the larger problem: Islamic fundamentalism of the most repulsive, retrograde and violent kind.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/22/2006

I agree, Peter K.

In fact, the Israelis have made the desert bloom, and have gone on from there to create a modern society, starting with nothing, accepting hundreds of thousands of refugees (both from Europe and the Muslim world) and surrounded by violent, retrograde barbarous neighbors. The comparison between their achievements and those of their neighbors is startling.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

Most of your argument is directed to Art. I would, however, like to address one point. You note the decline in Israel's reputation - something that, you will note, has not occurred in the US, where Israel ranks as the third most popular country in the world for Americans -. So, there is a part of the world, at least, where Israel is not widely considered tawdry or any other of the adjectives you have used.

In Europe, I do not think it possible to speak of Israel without asking why Israel crowds out so many other issues. There is, I think, a reason for that.

In 1973, the Arab Oil boycott began. Immediately thereafter, the various PM's of the various European - then EEC - states met. The US had, with Kissinger representing the US, noted that Arabs did not have anything much to sell other than oil such that their boycott could not be sustained (i.e. because they needed the cash to buy goods from the West). Hence, he advocated call the Arab hand, to use a poker term. The European states, instead, decided, at the instigation of France, to enter into a dialogue - really, a set of secret negotiations that led to a variety of agreements - with the Arab oil supplying states.

The gist of the agreements was to adopt the Arab League position on the Arab Israeli dispute, recognize the PLO as the sole representative of the Palestinian people, adopt the Arab League interpretation of UN 242, publicize, via the press and in universities, the achievements of Arab Muslim civilization and accept large number of Muslim immigrants without attempting to assimilate them.

The Arab side, for its part, promised to provide Europe with a steady supply of oil and priority with respect to European contractors to build in the Arab lands and with respect to technology transfer including, most particularly, nuclear technology. In addition, there were promises to keep Palestinian terror out of Europe - and note the numerous incidents that, before that time, had occurred.

This arrangement was, at the time, known as the Euro-Arab Dialogue. The meetings of the organization would include the highest ranking members of the various political parties from across Europe.

Since that time, the dialogue has grown in importance and has sparked further arrangements such as the Mediterranean Partnership. It has also sparked substantial hatred of Jews and anti-Israel sentiment. I do not claim that the arrangement explains everything but it certainly is an important part of the mix. That the EU sometimes copies Arab League press releases on the Arab Israelis dispute speaks for itself, as such was part of the agreement.

All of this information can be found online, by the way. There is a useful explanation of the significance of this that was written by a well known scholar, Richard Rubinstein, for Reform Judaism Magazine. http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1113 . A more thorough exploration of this matter appears in Bat Ye'or book Eurabia.

I note that in other parts of the world (e.g. India and Japan and China and Korea and Australia), Israel is not an obsession. The coverage is closer in style to that in the US and people have not mostly turned Israel into the devil, as you see it. I do not think it an accident. I think, in the case of Europe, opinion is closely allied with perceived interest. Interest has pervaded your papers, which as you note, are not as free as in the US, your universities, etc. And the large Muslim populations in your countries place their own force against adopting a rational position or understanding of the dispute.

Now, to my points. You do not seem to address them directly. You pose, rather than addressing my point, a straw man argument. What I said was that Arafat's rejection, given what was going on, makes his refusal to resolve the matter important. As Bandar say, the blood spilled since his refusal to accept the Israeli proposal is on Arafat's head.

Peter Kovachev -
12/22/2006

I would say that such a rejection by such neighbours, not to mention luminaries such as yourself, is one of the more important confirmations of Israel's correct course.

Peter Kovachev -
12/22/2006

Correction, the above post is for Peter C, not Barrie. Didn't mean to confuse a hysterical neo-antisemitic popinjay (i.e., Peter Clarke) with Barrie.

Peter Kovachev -
12/22/2006

Mr. Mocker,

The question is irrelevant. There is no such thinking, living entity known as "the world" entitled to permit formations of states. Had "the world" rejected Israel's statehood on official fora, it would have formed as a Jewish nation in any case, and would have been just as successful.

Peter Kovachev -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

As I'm not Jewish at this time, I'm not automatically eligible for permanent residency in the pioneer Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. However, in April of next year I hope to be visiting university friends friends in Ma'ale Adumim for three weeks and intend to volunteer in construction projects and guard duties there.

If my religious status should change, I promise you that if I were to make aliyah (return to the Land of Israel), I would prefer to settle in a place in the disputed territories. Does that make you happy?

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

I'll try to deal with both your posts in one note, N, but it's all becoming a little bit repetitive. I think you focus so much on accumulating detail to big up your existing worldview that you miss the giant oak floating through your front door.

First, "Barrie, I cannot imagine, if the Palestinians were the one making increasingly generous offers (of course, they never made any offers at all) and the Israelis were the ones whose only answer was "NO"--no, I cannot imagine that you would be defending them as you defend Arafat." Am I defending Arafat or am I accepting a more rational explanation of a negotiator's behaviour than you offer? You assume that everyone has to take a position. In the real world, most people don't take sides until they have to, and when they do they tend to do it reluctantly and they then favour the side that's least unattractive. For some three decades after WW2, the zionists (and Jews more generally) benefited from this feature of our psychology; now Israel is increasingly perceived as a tawdry racist bully intent on subduing and brutalising its neighbours - everything our fathers fought WW2 to protect their children from, in fact.

"There is a reason why Clinton, Ross and Bandar turned off to Arafat so strongly concerning the peace process, and they knew him--you don't. You can't just dismiss their opinions with a shrug of the shoulders." Well, there is probably more than one reason and if you read my comments again I did not dismiss them. I assume there opinions helped form, and were informed, by both the process itself and by the broader forces pressing on them from outside the process - that's the nature of a negotiation, and sometimes negotiations fail. My guess is that time is no longer with Israel.

"Let us assume that holding out might have led to more Israeli concessions. But, that was not all that was involved. At the same time, Arafat decided either to turn the terror switch on or, if not that, to do nothing when terror took off in earnest. Which is to say, his rejection did not take place in a vacuum." Mmm..., I just said something which in some measure approximates this but without the childish rhetoric about "the terror switch".

"So, I do not think he can get off the hook by saying that an extra 1/% of Jerusalem or of the captured territories was worth more than 4,000 people. So, even if we go by the material you now post, he is even more guilty of malfeasance." Not something which I would consider amongst the highlights of forensic analysis on this website and the conclusion shows a not unexpected lack of rigor. But let's assume that Arafat was a really, really cunning and utterly devious bastard and planned everything including the outcomes - Sharon, unilateral withdrawal, the criminal invasion of the Lebanon, civil war between Fatah and Hamas. Rationally, is it best to regard this as malfeasance or an awareness that without a peace - of a kind which may no longer be possible now - time really runneth out for Israel and waiting best serves Palestinian interests in the long term. Ask Leiberman. He's figured it out and he's got one - very central European - solution but even that would only bring the day closer. Food for thought, heh? It only goes to show that life is never as simple as a walk across a field. I think Boris Pasternak said that.

Peter Kovachev -
12/22/2006

Barrie, as Yehudi also points out, the "selling of Jews for oil" is a figurative expression. Fortunately, no Jews are slated to be handed over to Arabs for barrels of oil. Not yet, at least.

I would use a more precise expression, namely "selling Jewish blood for Arab oil," which is literally what various parties, including your State Department has been doing ever since the formation of the Jewish State, and what the EU has been doing ever since it signed away its independence for oil back in 1973. The results of appeasing the bottomless gut of the Arabs and their "Palestinians" has brought cheap oil to the US and the EU, but has cost and continues to cost Jewish lives.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Omar,

Does that also apply to Muslims who expelled 900,000 Jews? If not, maybe that is the compensation for your alleged crimes.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

Let us assume that holding out might have led to more Israeli concessions. But, that was not all that was involved. At the same time, Arafat decided either to turn the terror switch on or, if not that, to do nothing when terror took off in earnest. Which is to say, his rejection did not take place in a vacuum.

So, I do not think he can get off the hook by saying that an extra 1/% of Jerusalem or of the captured territories was worth more than 4,000 people. So, even if we go by the material you now post, he is even more guilty of malfeasance.

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

If Arafat was worried that his persistent refusals of ever more generous offers (he made NO counter-offers, by the way, just kept saying NO), in the hope of getting even better offers as a result of his refusals, would lead to people thinking he was the roadblock to peace--well, (a) that is both natural and correct, and (b) if he were so worried, he could've accepted the Taba deal; the Israelis did.

Barrie, I cannot imagine, if the Palestinians were the one making increasingly generous offers (of course, they never made any offers at all) and the Israelis were the ones whose only answer was "NO"--no, I cannot imagine that you would be defending them as you defend Arafat.

Throughout our conversations, you have refused to accept that the Palestinians are subjects with agency, not objects of the Israelis, and that they are adults who are responsible for their own decisions, actions, and--in a synergistic interaction with the Israelis--responsible for the hardening Israeli policy changes caused by those Palestinian decisions, actions, and increasingly outrageous atrocities.

You treat them as if they were children.

There is a reason why Clinton, Ross and Bandar turned off to Arafat so strongly concerning the peace process, and they knew him--you don't. You can't just dismiss their opinions with a shrug of the shoulders.

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

N, after I posted the item above I googled "the treason of the intellectuals" and came up with this article which I think might interest you:

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

Hi N. From your reading of the free NYRB article, I think you may be having a little trouble with the concept of nuance. Perhaps it will get better with practice. Still, here's something from the second NYRB piece (actually a review of Dennis Ross' book by Robert Malley) that you don't want to shell out for which might give you pause for thought even if it is also highly nuanced (what this means is that just because something doesn't beat you over the head doesn't mean it supports your position - all about interpretive insight, again, heh?):

"The status quo presented some political advantages (he could ride the wave of Palestinian armed struggle and suffering, gaining domestic and international stature), while accepting the deal presented potential risks. Waiting for another day likely seemed the safer bet. In all this Arafat was hardly alone. Despite Ross's claim that the other Palestinian negotiators would have accepted the deal, there is ample evidence that the most influential among them were either passive or actively lobbied against it. Weighing his position at the moment against the uncertain benefits of a putative agreement, he followed his political instincts—wrongly, alas.

"Besides, as Ross's account illustrates, the Palestinian leader had been given reason to doubt that Clinton's offer was the best he could expect. At Camp David, Ross recalls, Clinton had first told Arafat that in order to accommodate Israeli settlements and security interests, he could do no better than offer Palestinian sovereignty over a little more than 90 percent of the West Bank, plus a symbolic swap of land, and Palestinian sovereignty over "several outer neighborhoods in East Jerusalem." Clinton subsequently revised his proposal at Camp David; the Palestinians would receive 91 percent of the West Bank and would be compensated with a swap of Israeli land equivalent to 1 percent of the West Bank, as well as Palestinian sovereignty over several Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem proper. But Clinton said this was stretching the offer as far as Israel could go. (Upon hearing this, the then director of central intelligence, George Tenet, "asked incredulously, 'Why hasn't Arafat accepted this?'") Several weeks after Camp David, Ross advised Arafat that Barak is "going to need 7 to 8 percent annexation...with a 2 percent swap." A little later, he confidently told a Palestinian negotiator, based on what he had heard from the Israelis,

"You know I have never misled you.... I am quite certain the Israelis will not go below 7 percent annexation...with a 2 percent swap but you will not do better than that.

"That very evening, the Israelis told the Palestinians they could accept a 5 percent annexation. (Ross says he was furious upon hearing this, though interestingly he directed his anger at the Israelis for providing the US bottom line rather than at the US and at himself for mechanically conveying it.) As has been said, the December 2000 Clinton parameters—the "culmination" of the negotiations—included a 4 to 6 per- cent annexation of the West Bank, a 1 to 3 percent swap, and Palestinian sovereignty over all of Arab East Jerusalem. Throughout this period, the US never showed the Palestinians a map (at one point in his book, Ross confesses that "we did not know the terrain [or] how each percentage of land might affect particular settlements or roads"), did not specify what areas Israel would annex, or what areas Palestine would receive as compensation. With such ephemeral bottom lines, and with positions that seemed grounded less in logic than in fluctuating assessments of how far Israel was prepared to go, it is little wonder that Arafat would, as Ambrose Bierce once put it, see in every ultimatum a last demand before the next concession. He apparently did not foresee that Israel's acceptance of Clinton's terms and his rejection of them would be used again and again as absolute proof not that he did not want that deal, but that he did not want any deal at all."

To make a satisfactory peace now we need to understand why previous attempts have failed but, obviously, if we prefer war, we don't really need to bother 'cos it's much easier to hang around a little while longer and just keep on ranting the same old slogans and all the same old half truths which are whole lies. That is truly "la trahison des clercs"....

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

Barrie, if you look back up the blog, you will see that NF has supplied you with the genocidal statement of Hamas official policy. He also has much to say about the Taba talks, after which Prince Bandar (hardly a pro-Israeli figure) called Arafat a liar concerning the offer he refused.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

Ok, I have read one of the two articles. The Ross article is not available for free. I am, however, aware of his position. His book on the subject, by the way, basically refutes the position in the Hussein Agha and Robert Malley article.

One interesting point in the article. Malley and Agha find a way to justify what, according to Prince Bandar, met Arafat's privately stated redline. The proposal, on December 23, 2006, was as follows:

Many of those inclined to blame Arafat alone for the collapse of the negotiations point to his inability to accept the ideas for a settlement put forward by Clinton on December 23, five months after the Camp David talks ended. During these months additional talks had taken place between Israelis and Palestinians, and furious violence had broken out between the two sides. The President's proposal showed that the distance traveled since Camp David was indeed considerable, and almost all in the Palestinians' direction. Under the settlement outlined by the President, Palestine would have sovereignty over 94 to 96 percent of the West Bank and it would as well have land belonging to pre-1967 Israel equivalent to another 1 to 3 percent of West Bank territory. Palestinian refugees would have the right to return to their homeland in historic Palestine, a right that would guarantee their unrestricted ability to live in Palestine while subjecting their absorption into Israel to Israel's sovereign decision. In Jerusalem, all that is Arab would be Palestinian, all that is Jewish would be Israeli. Palestine would exercise sovereignty over the Haram and Israel over the Western Wall, through which it would preserve a connection to the location of the ancient Jewish Temple.

Arafat did not accept the proposal. The main excuse given by the article is that Clinton's days in office were few. To me, that is a joke since, in fact, Israel accepted the offer. It was, after all, with Israel that Palestinian Arabs must make peace. And, if they wanted to do things under International auspices, why would it matter that Clinton was leaving office? The premise makes no sense. And, if the noted offer was not acceptable, that ought to tell you that Arafat would not even have accepted the so-called Geneva proposal. They also note that the details were not all worked out, which was true. But, in fact most of the details were worked out, as other sources show.

So, even on Agha and Malley's apologia, the argument does not fly. The offer on the table was, for practical purposes, the same as that at Geneva, some years later.

You might also read historian Benny Morris' account. It also is not kind to Arafat. The account agrees basically with that given by Clinton. And, evidently, Clinton really meant what he said because, as was reported in The Guardian rag, ehm paper, Clinton warned Bush II when he came into office that, above all else, never trust Arafat.

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

Before anyone draws large conclusions from Barrie's position here, you should realize that up above, in discussing Northern Ireland, his position was that we must accept the facts on the ground as they exist now (that is, the Protestant majority in Ulster), and everyone work together for a political solution.

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

Barrie, YOU asked for the evidence of Hamas' genocidal stance. NF has PROVIDED it.

You should accept that there are policy-consequences that follow from this evidence, and indeed the evidence ought to have some impact on your own stance.

Of course, perhaps like Omar, you will simply deny its meaning. I hope you don't lower yourself to that level.

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

Exactly so.

Of course, you may not WISH to believe that such an ignorant brute as Omar is representative of Arab opinion--but he asserts that he is, and I believe him.

After all, no one in Beirut protested Hezbollah's showing of a 29-part television series during Ramadan 2003 that focused on Jews eating Christian babies.

You can't escape the problem Omar represents by claiming that Omar is unrepresentative, Barrie. On the contray, you must face that fact that Omar IS representative, Barrie. What's your evidence to the contrary?

And if Omar IS respresentative, does that not require you to change your stance on Israeli responsibility?

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

I am not sure you are addressing me. However, Art's point that the 1938 analogy of blaming the victim for not committing suicide is exactly on point. And, the point that your country's alleged support of Israel - or, to be more exact, its not contradicting US support for its ally Israel - is hardly a lesson in supporting powerful elites. Israel, unless you did not notice, is surrounded by hostile states that are ruled by barbaric with hostile populations that cheer for people who target civilians. And, Israel is not exactly in a world cheering on its behalf.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

That is, tango

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

The withdraw has not ushered in peace. It takes two to tangle.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

If you meant this post for me rather than Art, I note that Omar's view is likely a very common view among Arabs. Ask him. He will confirm this point.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

The leader of a cause is not a marginal figure. But, that is what you turn the Grand Mufti into. That is rather amazing.

It is one thing to say that he is not the only figure or, perhaps, even the most important figure. That may be correct. But to call him marginal is based on ignorance, in my humble opinion.

Consider: he played a substantial role in stirring up hatred and preventing those who might be more interested in compromise from being heard. He issued a fatwa against the British that sided with the Nazis. He stirred up riots. He helped instigate the pogrom in Iraq of 1941. He played an important part in the 1948 war. That is not marginal.

I note that you misread my comment. I did not say Hitler chased after Israelis. I was addressing your comparison of Israelis with Nazis.

As for the large number of extra graves, the one thing the Mufti clearly did have an important role in is preventing immigration to what is now Israel. That meanst that large numbers of people who might have escaped the Nazis could not. That, to me, fits my point.

His role with the Nazis is attested to in the Nuremberg trials. And, it is attested to in the German archives.

As for the HAMAS's position on Jews, see their charter. Some of the quotes of note from that infamous document - and some are not listed as evidence of genocidal intent but merely to give a flavor of the document -:

Israel, by virtue of its being Jewish and of having a Jewish population, defies Islam and the Muslims.

*************

For our struggle against the Jews is extremely wide-ranging and grave, so much so that it will need all the loyal efforts we can wield, to be followed by further steps and reinforced by successive battalions from the multifarious Arab and Islamic world, until the enemies are defeated and Allah’s victory prevails. Thus we shall perceive them approaching in the horizon, and this will be known before long: “Allah has decreed: Lo! I very shall conquer, I and my messenger, lo! Allah is strong, almighty.”

*****************

But even if the links have become distant from each other, and even if the obstacles erected by those who revolve in the Zionist orbit, aiming at obstructing the road before the Jihad fighters, have rendered the pursuance of Jihad impossible; nevertheless, the Hamas has been looking forward to implement Allah’s promise whatever time it might take. The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim).

****************

Within the circle of the conflict with world Zionism, the Hamas regards itself the spearhead and the avant-garde. It joins its efforts to all those who are active on the Palestinian scene, but more steps need to be taken by the Arab and Islamic peoples and Islamic associations throughout the Arab and Islamic world in order to make possible the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war. “We have cast among them enmity and hatred till the day of Resurrection. As often as they light a fire for war, Allah extinguishes it. Their effort is for corruption in the land, and Allah loves not corrupters.” Sura V (Al-Ma’idah—the Table spread), verse 64.

I stand by my comment about the genocidal position of the HAMAS. And note: this does not include statements by their clerics and activists which are direct and blunt on the matter. For this, see the collection on the MEMRI website.

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

OK N and Art, but forgive me if I'm brief and ignore the obvious propaganda points about zionism as a liberation movement, the casual nature in which states whose sole purpose was to accomodate the needs of a non pre-existing population were created throughout the 20th century, your misrepresentation of Leiberman's clearly stated position, and other windy gusts.

"That is simply not true. The proposal on the table at the end of 2000 met Arafat's redline position, as noted by Prince Bandar who discussed the issue with Arafat and concluded that Arafat was a liar when he denied what had been offered. The details of the position can be obtained from the US government but, if you look carefully, you can actually find a transcript of the proposal on line.

"I realize that in Europe, there is a tendency to overlook the events of December 2000. But, they are rather critical to understanding the matter. And, they are the main issue for Clinton who, you will note, did complain bitterly that Arafat walked away from his own position and helped create an unnecessary war - another war of choice."

You summary may well reflect the positions of Clinton, the US government and Prince Bandar with some degree of accuracy, but none of them in any way reflect either Arafat's formal or private position or that of the Palestinian National Authority or any of its constituent elements. The most sensible account of Camp David's tragic farce is the one offered at http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380
which you may choose to supplement withhttp://www.nybooks.com/articles/17455.

I suppose it all goe to show that we live and, if we wish to, we learn; however, 'tis also said that even though you lead a horse to water, you can't make him drink - although it helps if you take along the front half of the horse as well.

Take care, and have a good Christmas.

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

Dear Barrie,

Very weak reply to support an untenable hypothesis--that the Israels can deliver peace on their own (!!!). The Israelis, in desperation, tried the policies you mention--and the result was that (a) southern Lebanon was turned illegally into one giant concrete fortress from which missiles shielded by civilians could be--and eventually were-- showered on northern pre-1967 Israel; (b) the withdrawal from Gaza led to Gaza, too, becoming a base from which hundreds of missiles have been fired into pre-1967 Israel.

It is simply outrageous for you to say that the Israels can deliver peace by themselves, without an interlocutor, and facing people who use every Israeli concession to build bases from which to mount ever larger attacks. It is anti-historical as well as immoral to place the burden totally on Israel when Israel has no interlocutor for peace.

You don't approach this with cool strategic sensibility, Barrie. You claimed do to that, above, and I was startled. On the contrary, your writing quivers with moral indignation at. the Israelis--not at those who attack them.

The Israelis aren't saints; no established polity in our international world is, let alone one that has to survive in the violence of the Middle East. But you have never said a specific word about Palestinian or Arab responsibility for this situation. Your anger goes in only one direction. Given Palestinian and Arab actions, that is truly perverse.

What I think is going on is this: the European elites are unwilling to face the ugly specter of resurgent fundamentalist Islam, not only in the Middle East but in the immigrant communities they have foolishly let into their own countries and have not assimilated. Rather than face this world crisis, and the measures of self-defense it calls forth, they blame the Jews.

The parallel is obvious, I'm sorry to say: in early autumn 1938, the British govt, when about to sell out Czechoslovakia to Hitler, turned against the Czechs when they balked. The Czechs weren't angels either. But rather than confront the REAL problem in the region, and the sacrificies that might be necessary to stop it--namely, Hitlerian expansion--the British govt blamed the Czechs, the victims, for not wanting to commit national suicide. Eventually, the British and the French in fact forced them to commit national suicide,and Chamberlain happily proclaimed "peace in our time.". A year later, Britian and France faced the same problem over Poland, as I remember. It was too late for the Czechs.

That's what I think is going on here. The Euro-elites do not want to face the larger problem, so they blame the current main victim of the problem, ever more bitterly, for disturbing their afternoon tea. In the end, they will be willing to sacrifice that victim, and sacrifice that victim completely. And to soothe their conscience, they will blame that victim, because that's a lot easier than facing up to the real problem until they have to.

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

N, I should think that Sharon's (failed) policy of unilateral withdrawal, and central to the election of the Olmert government, is fact enough for anyone.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

I am so glad you think so highly of your own writing ability. However, you did not state your point clearly, whether or not you think you did.

N. Friedman -
12/22/2006

Barrie,

Some facts, please.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/22/2006

Go figure?!

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

"It is nice to believe in peace but it takes two to have a peace, which means the Israelis cannot deliver peace on their own. And, they are not going to commit suicide."

I would argue that the Israelis have long been aware that they have the ability to deliver peace on their own but, unfortunately, until the Lebanon, they manifestly preferred to think they were able to deliver the peace they claim they want on terms of their choosing. Another on of History's delusions, not unlike that of the Third Reich in the early years of WW2.

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

N, you seem to assume that, whatever his other faults (or virtues, for that matter), Omar is the guiding intelligence of the Palestinians. What about all the others? Don't they count for anything? Or is that a silly question?

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

First question: no.

Second question: yes.

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

First point: OK, N. Let me think about that one. It may take me the rest of my life and , even then, I may not reach any conclusion, but I'll work on it.

Second point: No, I did not support Blair's stance over the criminal invasion of the Lebanaon. And given that I come "from a country where discourse is shaped around, according to his own words, protecting corrupt and powerful elites", doesn't that mean I have greater empirical and philosophical experience on a day to day basis of the problems of "truth" which I choose to share with you? Life is practice bolstered by theory, and theory is provisional (as is life itself, of course).

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

"...for Barrie, if I understand him correctly, he claims to be contentious."

You do not understand me correctly - which gives me pause when I consider whether I can rely on your interpretive skills on other matters. I clearly stated that the histories themselves are contentious, ie, in contention, disputed, argued, or whatever formulation works towards an improved understanding by you of the point I very thoughtfully made.

Barrie Lambert -
12/22/2006

N, you say:

"This website is a website that discusses history. (NOT ALWAYS: UNVERIFIED AND UNVERIFIABLE PROPAGANDA CLAIMS HAVE A HABIT OF BREAKING THROUGH ON WHEN PALESTINE IS THE ISSUE.) The history of the dispute between Arabs and Jews is not even intelligible without understanding figures such as the Grand Mufti. The same for benGurion and others. (SORRY BUT I THINK THE HISTORY IS MUCH MORE LIKELY TO BE INTELLIGIBLE IF THE GRAND MUFTI IS RECOGNISED FOR WHAT HE WAS - A FAIRLY MARGINAL CEREMONIAL FIGURE, ESSENTIALLY A STRAW MAN WHO'S MYTH HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY BUILT UP AND PUBLICISED BY PEOPLE LIKE YOU. ON PRESENT KNOWLEDGE, BEN GURION IS THE CENTRAL FIGURE IN THE HISTORY OF THE JEWISH STATE.)

"I understand your comment to equate the Grand Mufti - leader of the Palestinian Arabs and an active accomplice (AN AWFUL LOT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY THE TERMS 'ACTIVE' AND "ACCOMPLICE" - BOTH TERMS ARE HIGHLY SPECIFIC AND I THINK, WHEN THEY ARE COMBINED, THEY JUST MAKE A VERY STUPID PROPAGANDA CLAIM WHICH FLIES IN THE FACE OF ALL THE EVIDENCE) in Hitler's program to murder Jews wherever they could be found - with any of the Israelis of note. (WHO WERE THESE "ISRAELIS" WHEN HITLER WAS KICKING ABOUT? OR ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT ADOLF HAD ACCESS TO A TIME MACHINE WHICH ENABLED BOTH HIM AND THE GRAND MUFTI TO DRAG ISRAELIS BACK FROM THE FUTURE TO SATISFY THE DEMANDS OF THEIR PROGRAMME FOR MURDER?) Is that good history? (IF YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT YOUR CLAIMS, NO; IF MINE, MORE LIKELY SO.) Is it even fair? (MMMMM... ASK A STOOPID QUESTION...) Hundreds of thousands of grave, at the very least, owe their existence to the Grand Mufti. (OVER THE TOP AHISTORICAL, PROPAGANDISTIC NONSENSE.) And, as the evidence shows, he played a substantial role in the decision by Nazi Germany to turn from the merely vile to the genocidal. (HOW SO? IF YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THIS ON ACCEPTABLE EVIDENTIAL GROUNDS, YOU WILL MAKE YOU REPUTATION AS A HISTORIAN, AND DESERVEDLY SO.) You can say what you will about Israelis but their sins pale in comparison with those of the Grand Mufti." (SINS? SINS? I PREFER THE MUCH MORE VERIFIABLE CONCEPT OF CRIMES.)

"the HAMAS, publicly advocates genocide" (I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS STATEMENT - NOT DIATRIBE FROM THE ISRAELI OR JEWISH PRESS, BUT SENSIBLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE.)

art eckstein -
12/22/2006

N.F. writes:

"It is nice to believe in peace but it takes two to have a peace, which means the Israelis cannot deliver peace on their own. And, they are not going to commit suicide."

That's the problem in a nutshell, Barrie. Really, you must read Omar. He's not interested in peace with Israel. He's only interested in destroying Israel. It's not hidden, he proclaims it.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

This is exactly right - see my post below. Clarke's alternative is that the accused not be entitled to competent - even reknown - lawyers to present the evidence in their favor in their case. What a chilling and unsurprising implication to be ushered forth as the latest installment from this pompous, holier-than-thou moron.

E. Simon -
12/22/2006

What Clarke can't stand, is that lawyers, like historians, require evidence for their profession to have meaningful value. In the U.S. we convict or acquit people based on evidence, Clarke - although I understand if that hurts you since you spend so much time berating historians for using evidence to make their cases, as well. It is not a lawyer's role to judge his client's guilt or innocence, only to defend it based on the facts. This doesn't upset those of us who understand that there is an impartial judge and/or hopefully impartial jury to decide the case. But to a pseudonym who can't tell the difference between presenting evidence and impartially evaluating it, your handicap in this department of understanding is certainly not surprising.

E. Simon -
12/21/2006

"Clearly, your country could learn something from the US."

Clearly it should be intriguing that one who is obsessed with reframing debate, rather than with actually addressing arguments, comes from a country where discourse is shaped around, according to his own words, protecting corrupt and powerful elites. That he does not see his own epistemology and statements here as possibly disadvantageously warped by the whims of what corrupt elites have to say about the Arab-Israeli conflict is equally intriguing.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Art,

You should post your post so that Barrie sees it.

art eckstein -
12/21/2006

N.F. writes:

"It is nice to believe in peace but it takes two to have a peace, which means the Israelis cannot deliver peace on their own. And, they are not going to commit suicide."

That's the problem in a nutshell, Barrie. Really, you must read Omar. He's not interested in peace with Israel. He's only interested in destroying Israel. It's not hidden, he proclaims it.

art eckstein -
12/21/2006

Edward Said was not a historian by training (by training, he was a professor of English Literature), and his attempt at it in Orientalism--a disgracefully successful book in academia--demonstrates that he is not a historian. Over the past decade the book has been take apart bit by bit by real historians (of course, Bernard Lewis made an early good start), historians both of the Middle East and of European intellectual history, until there is nothing left in terms of its scholarly factual support-structure (though its polemical "anti-imperialist" position remains popular, especially in English departments. Over here in History, he is not treated as a serious historian in the sense of providing the reader with anything like a truthful picture of the past, though--again--his analytical ideas are deemed interesting by some).

A good attack from 1995 is the very eminent John MacKenzie's, Orientalism: History, Theory and the Arts.
Most recently,see Robert Irwin, Dangerous Knowledge: Orientalism and its Discontents (2006).

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Barrie,

A government cabinet member is not going to sue you for stating something that, according to you, is in the news. But, it is interesting that your country's laws make people fear publishing their views. Clearly, your country could learn something from the US.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Art,

The evidence you cited indicates that Husseini did play a role in the Nazi state moving from the purely vile to the genocidal. I did not say his role was pivotal or decisional. I think your term for him as a facilitator is apt.

That formula is rather bad enough. It makes him, legally speaking, an accomplice before the fact and, I should add, his role in the Hanzar SS Division makes him a participant.

As for Barrie, if I understand him correctly, he claims to be contentious. He thinks that there is a better state for Palestinians and Israelis. Maybe there is. But, unfortunately, it really will require convincing the likes of Omar - who has rather typical Arab views - and that will take time, likely another century or two. I think, Barrie, that is why Art so often quotes Omar. [Note to Art: Omar really is a valuable resource who should be encouraged to state his views.]

Now, Barrie, one other point. The late Professor Said is not an historian - and I am not saying that only historians can create first rate scholarship but I am, in his case, saying that his scholarship about the Middle East is really not serious scholarship.

His grand contribution to the field is character assassinate of serious historians like Bernard Lewis. And, he may have, if Martin Kramer's scholarship is correct, played a pivotal role in ruining Middle Eastern studies in the US. That is not a very good legacy to have.

Lewis, in fact, was rather fond of Arabs and the Arab regions but, most especially, he was fond of Turks and the Ottoman Empire. And, if you have actually read any of his books, his love of Islam and, most especially, the Ottomans comes shining through. Mr. Said's attacks on Lewis, et al, in other words, are a smear, not serious scholarship.

But, even if Lewis hated the Arabs and Turks, which he did not, his scholarship would still be truly great. I might recommend that you read what is likely his best book - at least in my view -, which is The Muslim Discovery of Europe. The breadth of scholarship is so enormous that it is almost unimaginable. Only Ignaz Goldhizer's scholarship remotely matches that of Lewis.

I might also recommend, Barrie, that you read some scholarship by former dhimmis. That scholarship, which is mostly not endearing of Islam, does tend to show what the dhimmi experience was really about. And, it is not a pretty picture, unless you make things up and imagine the Andalusian delusion. In this regard, you might read the truly brilliant Bat Ye'or's book The Decline of Eastern Christianity Under Islam. It ranks rather high although she leaves no doubt that, unlike Lewis, she has no use for the society of Jihad which, to her, is joined with the dhimmi concept. She is not alone in holding that view and, thus far, other than scholars who like to smear, her scholarship holds up quite well, most especially because she reproduces many of the works she cites.

Regardless of that: The Islamic revival has reignited the Jihad. Jihad against infidels is not about peace and making peace in the face of Jihad is rather unlikely. That is true no matter what scholar you read, unless the scholar is a complete hack. That is my way of saying that it is nice to believe in peace but it takes two to have a peace, which means the Israelis cannot deliver peace on their own. And, they are not going to commit suicide to make the Palestinian Arabs end their Jihad any quicker than your country plans to withdraw all the Protestant settlers from Northern Ireland. Or, as we say in the US, when pigs can fly.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

"And for you, Barrie, to equate Husseini, who was an accomplice in and facilitator of the Holocaust, with any Ben Gurion (say) is indeed bad history." Not bad, but contentious, and through contention a better, truer history may emerge supporting (a) more humane system(s) for both Israelis and Palestinians.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

The fear of the Other is not a mental aberration, it is a perfectly normal response which is not limited to Israelis

Repeatedly listing the Other's crimes is just a form of hyping one's self up, and in winding yourself up you are equally likely to wind the Other up. This is may only be "facile British poppycock" but it's sensible to reject it only if you're wholly committed to war and not peace. Sadly, I believe this is still the case with Israel, and I look at America chained by failed wars to Iraq and Afghanistan, and Israel's deep, deep failure in the Lebanon, and in these interesting times for Israel, the diminishing number of Israel's friends and its increasing number of enemies plus those who now choose to be just not friends, and I know that for a country which chooses to fight existential wars rather than seek routes for peace, it only takes........

Not double standards, Art (god, you do love to make that very whiny type complaint - must be in the genes); just strategic (and political) common sense which leads me to criticise both sides for very different reasons and to different degrees.

art eckstein -
12/21/2006

N.F., I don't think Husseini had much to do with starting the Holocaust. He just supported it overtly, and facilitated it.

But NF points out as I do that Omar doesn't run away from Husseini, even in combination with Hitler, Eichmann, and the SS. Neither did Arafat, for whom Husseini was both a relative and a hero under whose tutelage he grew up. That's not some sort of projective identification on our part, Barrie, nor did Arafat invoke Husseini pour epater les bourgeois--those are historical facts with current impact, as Omar's attitude itself shows. Yes, Omar is, as N.F. says, historically right not to run away from Husseini. He's just immoral.

And for you, Barrie, to equate Husseini, who was an accomplice in and facilitator of the Holocaust, with any Ben Gurion (say) is indeed bad history.

And that is why it is important that Israelis JAIL mass murderers of Arab civilians, while Palestinians CELEBRATE the mass murderers of Jewish civilians. That's not mutual projective identification. Those are cultural facts with significance.

So, Barrie, I am surprised, truly, that you don't see that different cultures really are different, and that a culture that jails mass murderers of civilians is fundamentally more decent than a culture that celebrates them. And yet the former is whom you vilify.

To truly understand this situation, you need to take a very careful look at the Palestinians, as I have been urging you to do. We are dealing with a synergistic relationship here, not a linear one based on Israel.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

I'm posting in the UK and this is published in the UK. That's real enough for me.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Barrie,

I see. You are afraid of being sued. Get real. You are posting in the US and he is not going to sue you.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Barrie,

This website is a website that discusses history. The history of the dispute between Arabs and Jews is not even intelligible without understanding figures such as the Grand Mufti. The same for benGurion and others.

I understand your comment to equate the Grand Mufti - leader of the Palestinian Arabs and an active accomplice in Hitler's program to murder Jews wherever they could be found - with any of the Israelis of note. Is that good history? Is it even fair? Hundreds of thousands of grave, at the very least, owe their existence to the Grand Mufti. And, as the evidence shows, he played a substantial role in the decision by Nazi Germany to turn from the merely vile to the genocidal. You can say what you will about Israelis but their sins pale in comparison with those of the Grand Mufti.

Now, there are, in Palestinian Arab circles in the PA territories, those who celebrate the Grand Mufti. In fact, Arafat, when he was alive, was one of them.

Whether Art is being overdramatic - and I am not sure that is correct -, fact is that the leadership of the Palestinian Arabs, i.e. the HAMAS, publicly advocates genocide. So, if the focus does not belong on the likes of the Nazi Grand Mufti of history, he has much company in the Islamic resistance movement (i.e. the HAMAS) which, as they note, grew out of the Islamic Brotherhood, a group that, not surprisingly given their agenda of killing Jews wherever they can find them, also was connected with the Nazis early on and has worked with them subsequently.

Now, you want to live with history that is nice and neat. But, in fact, the Palestinian Arab movement cannot be fully understood without its connection with the Nazis. In this regard, Omar is - and note this, Art - correct not to run away from the actual history of Nazi involvement in the Palestinian Arab cause. Arafat did not do that. So, why should we all deny it? And why should Omar deny it?

And Barrie, you still have not explained what is wrong with Lord Levy. I await your explanation.

art eckstein -
12/21/2006

The Fear of the Other is not a mental aberration of the Israelis--who are the ones who are willing to talk, while the others blow themselves up to intentionally kill Israeli women and children, following the same genocidal stance which Husseini initiated. You've been reading too much of that idiot Edward Said. This isn't a matter of projective identification. Omar doesn't think Husseini was some demented cleric of the past; he defends Husseini's ties to the Nazis, to the SS, to Eichmann NOW. Get it: NOW.

And you're WAY too facile equating Ben Gurion etc. with Husseini. That's just facile British poppycock.
My point is that the Israelis live in the Middle East, where the proclaimed position of their enemies is to kill them. They are subjected to worldwide vilification when in the Intifada they have killed fewer Palestinians (and 2/3 of them armed men) than the Iranian government has hung innocent homosexuals (4,000). So get your vilifications straight.

I repeat to you, and wish you would take it to heart, but obviously do not wish to that your application of double standards here, vilifying the Israelis while refusing to accept the nature of their interlocutor starting from the 1920s, is morally perverse.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

Hi Art, you say: "Again, my point is that YOU, Barrie, must face that THIS is the nature of the interlocutor the Israelis face." I say, no it is not. It is ahistorical, anti-political pseudo-psycho nonsense and, although he might still be alive in your head, the Grand Mufti has been long dead in the real world. And if Jews big him up as the Mufti of All Evil doesn't it encourage decent Palestinians to reflect the image you've created back at you to thoroughly piss you off and make you look like a pack of over-militarised hysterics who are afraid of the dead? It certainly seems to work on this website and others.

Now, if you want to recant evil, how about starting with Ben Gurion and Jabotinski and then follow up immediately with Meir, Begin and Sharon. Then you might begin to get somewhere. But equally you might just consider this as gossip not history, and YOUr "reaction to the presentation of perfectly true but unpalatable information" may well be "Lies!".

Ain't that just the problem, though, which you and N and Elliott and others should be using your undoubted abilities to face and solve and lay to bed, that sheer petrifying fear of the Other which has taken over both the Jewish and the Palestinian imagination for the best part of a century?

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

The obvious ones, I'm afraid. Off the top of my head, The Assassins (I've still got a copy of the November 1967 Encounter with the same title which was published immediately prior to the book), The Arabs in History, Semite and Anti- semites, Muslims in Europe (?), The Middle East, one about Turkey and other with unremembered titles (and themes) on Islam and the Middle East. I guess I've been acquainted with his work for 40 years and aware of the extent (and some of the sources pre Said et al) of its factual and interpretive weaknesses since I shared a flat as a post grad with a guy who happened to be a Muslim and took an interest in Lewis' work in the early seventies.

Apropos Levy: I'm sitting in England and the law of libel here protects the allegedly corrupt who happen to be rich and powerful and who know how to play the system to their advantage (or who can buy lawyers to do it for them) in a way you cannot possibly imagine in almost any other western country so I really think you need to google a few terms like levy cash peerages corrupt funding party practises lord alvin stardust tennis partner and see what you find (and, subsequently, think).

Hope this helps.

Paul Mocker -
12/21/2006

If the nation of Israel did not exist today, would the world allow its formation now?

In other words, was the creation of the state of Israel in 1948 due to a unique set of circumstances?

A. M. Eckstein -
12/21/2006

The point is Husseini's dreadful ties with Hitler, Eichmann, the SS, Husseini's knowledge of and facilitation of the Holocaust (as in his letters to the govts of Romania, Bulgaria and Hungary), Husseini's responsibility for the 1929 Hebron Massacre (which you should read about, Barrie) plus his call for the death of every single Jew in the Middle East (that's in his autobiography) and the fact that this is NOT some marginal figure we're talking about but the fountainhead of the Palestinian movement. Yasser Arafat (a Husseini by birth) was very close to him when Arafat was a young man; his grandson is the Mufti now.

You may call the cultural nature of Israel's interlocutors "fluff" as a subject; I call it a tragedy and a psychosis that explains much.

Note that that idiot Omar Baker defends Husseini's ties to Hitler, Eichmann, the SS. Note that his goal is not yours, Barrie: he doesn't want a political settlement based on compromise. Note that his reaction to the presentation of perfectly true but unpalatable information is "Lies!" He's done this over and over, and when confronted with the fact that they AREN'T lies, he just goes on to another topic, without apology. And Omar is what passes for an intellectual in the Arab world.

Again, my point is that YOU, Barrie, must face that THIS is the nature of the interlocutor the Israelis face. We are dealing with a synergistic interaction here, and if you want to criticize Israel without mentioning the Arabs' huge contribution to the problem, that is intellectually misguided as an analysis.

So Husseini isn't about gossip in the far past, since Husseini remains a beacon-light for Palestinians. If Omar was willing to condemn Husseini to the depths of Hell, then Husseini's ties to Hitler, Eichmann, and the SS, and his promulgation of his own genocidal program, would be mere antiquarianism. Omar isn't willing to do this, even with as grotesque a figure as Husseini. Think about what that means.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Barrie,

Other than What Went Wrong, what books of Lewis have you read?

Oh, and I am still waiting to learn what is wrong, by your account, with Lord Levy.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

This is not meant to be a negative comment but I've been trying to figure out whether this section of the thread is a demonstration of gossip as history or history as gossip. I've never thought very highly of Lewis' work (too pompous by half for my taste) and What Went Wrong reinforced my view of him as little more than a walking, talking manifestation of the Schoolboy's Guide to Orientalist Fallacies so I guess it's apt that his name kicked off this bit of the thread. Maybe striving for balance is boring, but simple propaganda points readily turn against the propagandist when circumstances change and the perception of their meaning slips into reverse. For example, juxtapose the Watergate Affair and the Republican's 1968 campaign slogan, "Nixon's the One" and it's still sure to bring as big a smile to your face as it does to mine.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

correction:

Delete the paragraph that reads: "What you are saying is want events that affected Palestinians - minor matters by 20th Century standards - to be compared to uniquely terrible things, such as what Muslims did to Armenians and to Sudanese Christians and animists. That does not wash, Omar. It is a big lie."

Substitute:

What you are saying is you want events that affected Palestinians - minor matters by 20th Century standards - to be compared to uniquely terrible things, such as what Muslims did to Armenians and to Sudanese Christians and animists. That does not wash, Omar. It is a big lie.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Omar,

You write: Evil is evil and a crime is a crime; any attempt to quantify it or classify it or hierarchy it is ultimately, wittingly or unwittingly (obviously wittingly in this case), an attempt to exonerate a certain evil, or a certain crime, for being a "smaller evil" or “a less senior crime".
Neither of being "smaller" or” less senior" reduces the injustice inflicted on the victim nor the misery it caused him.
That bigger crimes were committed against others by others does not mean that the perpetrator of a certain crime shall go Scott free, unpunished and allowed to enjoy the fruits of his crime!

I think that is not so. I might add, Islamic jurisprudence distinguishes between bigger and smaller crimes. Western jurisprudence does as well.

What you are saying is want events that affected Palestinians - minor matters by 20th Century standards - to be compared to uniquely terrible things, such as what Muslims did to Armenians and to Sudanese Christians and animists. That does not wash, Omar. It is a big lie.

You write: Why the inevitability?

The answer lies in the unintegrability of a Zionist Israel in its environment, the concomitant demands its rejection will impose on it and thus the increased security threat it will be and pose to its environment which will be met in a different balance of power situation.
(If any thing Israel's nuclear arsenal decreased rather than increased its security).

What this all boils down to is, there are more Arabs and Arab countries and Arab money than Jews have and Arabs, in the long run, will therefore prevail. Or, in simple terms, might makes right.

You are quite correct that the Arab side has, by far, the upper hand and always has, due to the vast amount of land and peoples conquered, impoverished, enslaved by your people. How that translates into some sort of moral cause for today is beyond me.

In any event, the ability to focus power depends on the capacity of a society. Muslim society is moving backwards, adopting the 7th Century as the model for the 21st Century. That suggests that the ability of Muslims even to govern themselves will continue to deteriorate, one way or the other, until Muslims wake up. On the other hand, once Muslims adopt a 21st Century understanding of the world, the objection to a modern society such as Israel will vanish as the objection is largely based on outdated ideas about the world.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/21/2006

Folks: Ecce homo.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Barrie,

You write: I know you weren't, but that is precisely my point. However, almost an aside and in hushed breath, it is possible to draw a parallel between Franco, quelling the Spanish people with his Moroccans, and the British subverting the Palestinians with Jewish plantations (and, of course, the British were old hands at this, first quelling, then continuing to subvert the Irish by developing Scottish Protestant plantations in Ireland).

Let us assume that you are correct. Jews, however, had their own purposes. They are not to blame for what your imperialist government did.

You write: Well, mmmm... yes, mmmm... maybe in the circles you mix in but certainly not in mine, and I don't think the statement would poll well in any country in the world - apart from Israel, of course.

I was not aware that history is a popularity contest. By Jewish understanding, Zionism always posed itself as the Jewish liberation movement.

According to Herzl - and this goes way, way back - : Zionism is "self-help for the Jews" and "a moral, lawful, humanitarian movement, directed towards the long-yearned-for goal of our people." First Zionist Congress in 1897.

According, more recently, to Chaim Herzog: "Zionism is to the Jewish people what the liberation movements of Africa and Asia have been to their own people." Address to the United Nations.

Does anyone, nowadays, call the reconquista the Spanish Liberation movement? No. But it was. Does anyone, nowadays, call the Greek independence movement a liberation movement? Only Greeks. Was it a liberation movement? Beyond all doubt.

Was the Zionism the Jewish liberation movement? Beyond all doubt. That is true no matter what the world of ignorant and bigoted people think without investigating.

You write: First, the question has to be "which acts"? I think you actually should say something like "Arab countries do not even acknowledge their own acts as they are interpreted within the zionist canon" and that would make it a more accurate representation of the position. Second, I think the Turkish position is much more precise and subtle than you suggest. Turkey has always acknowledged that massacres occurred, but they do not accept that a genocide took place.

Arabs decline to acknowledge their expulsions of Jews. Yet, they not only expelled Jews but stole their property. Turks decline to acknowledge the intentional massacre of Armenians or its extent. The evidence of the Ottoman government's intent and the extent of the killing, I might add, is overwhelming, as detailed in a wonderful book by Vahakn Dadrian - the leading scholar on the subject -, History of the Armenian Genocide: Ethnic Conflict from the Balkans to Anatolia to the Caucasus..

You write: Well, for one, that there are any similarities between either of those cases and the problem posed by Israel, and the term "reconquista"

It would help if you explained the differences you see. I think the difference is you do not understand why Jews acted as they did. I am not sure, based on your comments, that you even know what they did, but that is another thing. Rather, you appear to have a version of events that corresponds with the propaganda that pervades your homeland.

You write: I would have thought it very unusual in terms of 20th century norms

I suggest you pick up a book or two and you will find that in the 20th Century, a lot of unusual things happened -and happened repeatedly - and a lot of people migrated and lots of states were born and people were displaced in numbers that dwarf what happened to either the Arab regions' Jews or the Arabs in Israel. But, you can believe what you like.

You write: and the creation of the Jewish state WAS a great wrong committed against the Palestinians, and its maintenance involves repeatedly committing wrongs against both the Palestinian people and others.

Again, when Palestinian Arabs had available compromises but ignore them, believing they would, as the Arab leaders of that time said, massacre all Jews in the area, the notion of a great wrong is laughable. Somehow, the phrase, "self-defense" seems apt.

The harm that came to Palestinian Arabs was their own doing as confirmed by their stated unwillingness to reach a compromise and their decision, instead, to fight in order, in their words, to repeat massacres committed by the Mongols. Do you believe that compromises are wrong? Do you believe that Jews were wrong to defend against wars in which the leader of the warrior advocates massacres?

You write: And presumably you'll tell Avigdor Leiberman to stop talking about expelling the Arab population?

I am not expert on him. However, my understanding of his position is that it does not include expelling anyone from any land. Rather, he advocates drawing Israel's lines - a very different thing - so that it has the highest percentage of Jews that can be accomplished without forcing anyone to be expelled. That is something rather different from expelling people. Such approach has been employed in Europe in modern times - between France and Germany. Now, he may hold a lot of other view that may be vile - and, again, I do not follow his politics - but the idea of drawing Israel's boundary so that it would be primarily a Jewish country is no worse than any of the other ideas on the table.

Of course, if we go by propaganda, drawing boundaries is expulsion.

You write to Art: the Camp David territorial proposals, inter alia, were, and remain, completely unacceptable to any rational Palestinian leadership

That is simply not true. The proposal on the table at the end of 2000 met Arafat's redline position, as noted by Prince Bandar who discussed the issue with Arafat and concluded that Arafat was a liar when he denied what had been offered. The details of the position can be obtained from the US government but, if you look carefully, you can actually find a transcript of the proposal on line.

I realize that in Europe, there is a tendency to overlook the events of December 2000. But, they are rather critical to understanding the matter. And, they are the main issue for Clinton who, you will note, did complain bitterly that Arafat walked away from his own position and helped create an unnecessary war - another war of choice.

art eckstein -
12/21/2006

Yes, facts are facts, Eliott. I notice no one has dared challenge mine about Husseini.

Art Eckstein

art eckstein -
12/21/2006

I read it the way NF reads it, and the way most normal people would. Hamas, for instance, claims Spain for Islam and wants it "back in the hands of the Muslims". This in a textbook for children from Hamas.

According to your ORIGINAL position, Omar, such statements should not exist. Then, when they are proven to exist, you claim they don't mean what they obviously say. But...they do. Bin Laden made the claim too. Not just the "wish" but the claim--that's just another one of your self-serving distinctions without a difference when caught with bad material, Omar.

If Israelis said they "wished" they had Amman or the Litani, I don't think you would say that wasn't a claim being made. Oh, no.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

Witty. Very witty. Or not. As the case may be. It's all a matter of perspective.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

Thin. Very thin, N.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

I know. Thanks.

Enjoy the break.

Barrie

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

Two replies in one. First N. These are the statements you make which more or less keep to the point:

"I was not referring to Franco." I know you weren't, but that is precisely my point. However, almost an aside and in hushed breath, it is possible to draw a parallel between Franco, quelling the Spanish people with his Moroccans, and the British subverting the Palestinians with Jewish plantations (and, of course, the British were old hands at this, first quelling, then continuing to subvert the Irish by developing Scottish Protestant plantations in Ireland).

"Zionism is normally thought of as the Jewish liberation movement". Well, mmmm... yes, mmmm... maybe in the circles you mix in but certainly not in mine, and I don't think the statement would poll well in any country in the world - apart from Israel, of course.

"Arab countries do not even acknowledge their own acts - exactly the same way that Turkey refuses to acknowledge the massacre of the Armenians." First, the question has to be "which acts"? I think you actually should say something like "Arab countries do not even acknowledge their own acts as they are interpreted within the zionist canon" and that would make it a more accurate representation of the position. Second, I think the Turkish position is much more precise and subtle than you suggest. Turkey has always acknowledged that massacres occurred, but they do not accept that a genocide took place.

"You say that analogizing to the Spanish reconquista and the Greek liberation raises assumptions. What are they?" Well, for one, that there are any similarities between either of those cases and the problem posed by Israel, and the term "reconquista", for two.

"Jews have not done anything unusual or wrong". I would have thought it very unusual in terms of 20th century norms; and the creation of the Jewish state WAS a great wrong committed against the Palestinians, and its maintenance involves repeatedly committing wrongs against both the Palestinian people and others.

And now Art. The problem with contentious histories is that they are contentious. Obvious to the rest of us, but not necessarily so obvious to the contenders.

At the heart of all the fluff you've offered me lies one statement, which is true as it stands, but the point of which is none the less profoundly untrue: "Palestinian total rejectionism is why President Clinton bitterly blamed Arafat for the failure of the Camp David and Taba talks". Clinton did, and for that matter may still, blame Arafat for the failure of his final fling as President, but the Camp David territorial proposals, inter alia, were, and remain, completely unacceptable to any rational Palestinian leadership. Everything else flows from that fact. No double standards then, and I've cleverly managed to get this far without once referring to Jewish intransigence... Whoops...!

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Omar,

Well, you may not believe that to be the case, but the quotes of people saying otherwise is rather lengthy.

And, from the bin Laden group, the claim is clearly made as more than a wish. Whether or not the claim is realistic - which is really what you are saying - is another story. But, that such is sought is beyond all doubt.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Barrie,

Again, what is your point about Lord Levy?

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Arnold,

Which Chomsky books did the US government finance? Please state the titles.

art eckstein -
12/21/2006

Once more, his willingness to call people liars when he is presented with such uncomfortable but true information stands revealed.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Elliot,

If you want more extensive documentation of Muslims leaving lands they have lost, see Bernard Lewis, The Muslim Discovery of Europe. I might add that it is perhaps the best historical writing I have ever read. And, he is rather clear on the matter.

The issue is not just one of people deciding to leave. There is theological and legal authority that calls for such to occur.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Trevor,

He was the leader of a political group. He was, in other words, doing the bidding of those he represented.

He was, in other words, not acting alone. And, he made rather clear to those he contacted that he was not acting alone.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Barrie,

You write: "But even from the perspective you have chosen to adopt, have you never stood back and thought, even once, that most - if not all - of the Palestinians' problems have been the direct result of the Jewish claim of a right to, first, a National Home, and second, a specifically Jewish state on Palestinian land? "

I have, in fact, considered that possibility but, on carefully reflection, decided that it makes no sense. It strikes me as a theory of convenience that is based on opposition to basic human rights. In short, it is the position of an extreme reactionary.

My position: Jews had every legal and moral right to migrate to what is now Israel because it was a place where they could find refuge. In other words, Jews exercised a basic human right. Jews had every legal and moral right to demand participation in the politics of the land they moved to. In other words, Jews sought to exercise a basic human right.

Jews were attacked for attempting, peacefully, to exercise their basic legal and moral rights even though the right they sought was participation with Arabs in the governance of the land. That gave Jews every right to defend themselves in order to create circumstances wherein their rights could be exercised. And, that is what they did.

At the same time, Jews sought compromise and accepted compromises. Arabs refused all compromises and blocked efforts by Jews to exercise their rights. In this regard, I quote Prince Bandar, who was the former Saudi Ambassador to the US:

"Since 1948, every time we've had something on the table we say no. Then we say yes. When we say yes, it's not on the table anymore. Then we have to deal with something less. Isn't it about time we say yes?"

So, I do not think your analysis stands up to scrutiny. I think it is colored by your country's perceived need to appease Arabs, not by morality.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/21/2006

Art Eckstein, thanks for quoting at length from Wisliceny and Hirszowicz. I read LH's book years ago and do not have it at hand. Just a few additions: Gitta Amipaz-Silber, La resistance juive en Algerie, presents [p 215] a photo of a Nazi list of Jewish population in the several European countries. The figure for France includes the Jews in French-ruled North Africa. This is significant regarding Haj Amin el-Husseini, since Husseini requested of Hitler that the Jewish Question in the Arab lands be solved as it was being solved in Nazi-fascist Europe [on this request or petition [a proposed draft declaration], see Majid Khadduri, Independent Iraq {2nd ed. only}; L Hirszowicz, op cit; B Lewis, Semites and Anti-Semites]. Husseini spoke to Hitler about this matter when they met in late 1941.

Haj Amin el-Husseini [al-Husayni] was the British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem and head of the Supreme Muslim Council of British palestine, and head of the Arab Higher Committee on Palestine. He was the most important Arab leader in the British-mandated territory. He was also the uncle of Abdul-Qader Husseini, the father of the late Faysal Husseini. Arafat was a distant relative of Amin el-Husseini, as you say. The extent of personal contact between them is not known to me.

This is how the magazine has the city Asbilia (Seville) telling its story to Hamas’ children: “Salaam Aleykum my dear beloved. I would like to introduce myself: I am the city Asbilia, the bride of the country Andalus (Spain). In the past I was the Capital of the Kingdom of Asbilia… the Arab Muslims, led by the hero-commander Musa bin Nusair, conquered me in 713, after a siege, which lasted one month.

“In the year 97 of the Muslim calendar, the ruler of Andalus, Ayoub bin Habib al-Lahimi moved the Capital to my sister city, Cordoba… in the year 646 of the Muslim calendar, Ferdinand III besieged me and conquered me after a siege which lasted one year and five months, and that was due to the strength of my fortifications and my walls. This is when the Golden Age of the Muslims ended, and Asbilia (Seville) was lost by the Muslims.”

And the story goes on: “However, Muslim cultural expression and symbols still remain witness to the superior Muslim culture on my soil…I yearn that you, my beloved, will call me to return, together with the rest of the lost cities of the lost orchard [Andalus] to the hands of the Muslims so that joy and happiness will fill my land, and you will visit me because I am the bride of the country of Andalus.” (emphasis added)

The material quoted is from The HAMAS children’s magazine, Al-Fateh, No. 66.

I trust that is sufficient?

art eckstein -
12/21/2006

Barrie, you write as follows:

"I have spent time in Northern Ireland and the moral positon N outlines on the Ulster plantations precisely reflects my own viewpoint - but we have what we have, and we are where we are in Ulster, and the moral imperative of a stable, equitable and workable peace requires a political solution, not continued finger pointing, not shouting without listening, nor picking up the gun to settle the problems left by contentious histories."

"We have what we have, we are what we are in Ulster", and now let's work for an equitable peace. That's also the Israeli positon. The only people who do NOT what you describe here are the Palestinians. Read Omar Baker: the war against Israel is a CHOICE, the suicide-bombers are a choice, other peoples may choose to move on after their traumas, or even if they have suffered worse traumas, or much worse traumas, and make some sort of settlement but the Palestinians make the noble choice NOT to move on but to destroy Israel. He's proud of this. At least he's honest on this point (if few others).

The difference between the two sides, one wanting negotiation the other destruction,

I note that do not answer the point I made above:

"Israelis put mass murderers of civilians in jail; that's the case of Baruch Goldstein, the Hebron mosque murderer. Palestinians name streets after the murderers of civilians. That's the case both with Amin el Husseini (who instigated the 1929 Hebron massacre in which twice as many Jews were killed as Arabs were killed by Goldstein,) as well as with recent suicide/homicide bombers,

"Were the Israelis to name streets and stadiums after Goldstein, make him an official national hero, THEN and only THEN would they be--not worse than the Palestinians but EQUAL to them in morality."

In these conditions, it is Israel here on this blog who is so often blamed, and by Carter as well. It's morally perverse, given your reasonable "we are where we are in Ulster and we must work within that contentious history." Give the same allowance to the Israelis.

It is the Palestinian response which should be problematized, since as Omar himself admits, that growth-of-death-cult response is NOT the usual response, even to far worse national traumas (including the 900,000 Jews who were displaced by Muslims between 1948 and 1960, which is 200,000 more than the 700,000 Palestinians). It is a CHOICE, and an unusual one. Few people on this blog appear willing to problematize that choice, or accept the dilemma that the Israelis actually have no one to talk to in terms of coming to a political solution.

They gave away the Sinai, with its oil (which would have made them energy independent), and got the coldest of peaces with Egypt; they gave up southern Lebanon, which the UN allowed Hezbollah-against UN resolutions--to turn into one huge concrete fortress protected by human shields from which rockets could be fired into half of Israel; they gave up Gaza, and now they get hundreds of rockets shot into pre-1967 Israel.

Now, every government learns from its international experience. And the Israeli government is the ones who made territorial concessions here, and you see what the results were, because of MUSLIM/ARAB response to those territorial concessions (not Israeli action). Yet it is Israel that is blamed for not making even more concessions. Again: morally perverse.

Barrie, accept the logic of your own stated position on Ulster: "!e have what we have, and we are where we are in Ulster, and the moral imperative of a stable, equitable and workable peace requires a political solution." But it is the Israelis, not the Palestinians who believe this and have tried it. Palestinian total rejectionism is why President Clinton bitterly blamed Arafat for the failure of the Camp David and Taba talks. And if you do not accept the same logic here on this subject as you appear ready to do in Ulster, then you are indeed guilty of using double standards.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Omar,

Among Islamists who claim Spain are bin Laden, Zawahiri. Also among Islamists ares senior members of HAMAS.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Barrie,

I was not referring to Franco. I was referring to the liberation of Iberia from the Muslim conquerors. That conquest was basically completed by the end of the 15th Century although, in Portuguese areas, the liberation was completed earlier.

Zionism is normally thought of as the Jewish liberation movement. Jews liberated their ancestral home. That, after all, is the end result of the War of 1948.

In the case of Arabs who lost their homes in the War of 1948, they were offered compensation. They refused it. At the same time, Jews expelled from Arab countries have yet to be offered compensation. Arab countries do not even acknowledge their own acts - exactly the same way that Turkey refuses to acknowledge the massacre of the Armenians.

I repeat and ask you again to think more carefully about the analogies I posted.

You say that analogizing to the Spanish reconquista and the Greek liberation raises assumptions. What are they?

My point here is this, so that you understand it. Jews have not done anything unusual or wrong. They migrated to their ancestral home. The right to find a place of refuge is a basic human right. They asked to participate in the country's politics - and, you will note, the dominant political position among Jews was, until they were attacked, joint participation in governance with Arabs. In other words, they sought to exercise their basic human rights.

When those elementary rights were opposed and then they were attacked, Jews acted as any other people on Earth act, namely, they protected themselves and created circumstances where they could have rights.

And, at the same time, the impact of that was to cause the expulsion of Jews from Arab countries which, to note, had the good impact of liberating such people from circumstances where they had no rights because they were Jews. So, that is also a positive outcome although such people are owed compensation from the various Arab states not only for expelling them but for stealing their property.

So, in every sense of the word, Jews did liberate themselves and established a home for themselves. And, at present, the largest single group of Jews in Israel are former dhimmis from Arab countries.

I cannot imagine how you find what Jews did in re-establishing a state troubling. Which is to say, to the extent that the Jewish liberation movement differed from the Spanish or Greek movements, Jews caused a lot fewer deaths and a lot fewer expelled people.

And again, unless you oppose all liberation movements, you must accept the fact that people become displaced by liberation movements. If not, you ought to tell Palestinian Arabs to stop talking about expelling the Jewish population - which is the position of the HAMAS.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/21/2006

N and Art, you point to Ephraim Karsh as saying that Muslims traditionally have emigrated from lands governed by non-Muslims. I would add Kamal [Kemal?] Karpat, the Turkish historian, who has written in the same vein.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/21/2006

Trevor, I'd like to know your view of Arab nationalism and pan-Islamism. Do you feel that there is no reason to study these phenomena? Do they have any relevance to the conflict with Israel or the several conflicts ongoing in Sudan? Have you studied Arab nationalism --very much suffused with Islam? Have you studied or written on pan-Islamism, as exemplified by Bin Laden, Hassan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Mawdudi?
I have written briefly on Islam as an aspect of the Sudanese genocide. Leo Kuper, an earlier writer on the subject, erred in my view by overlooking the Islamic aspect. http://www.think-israel.org/green.sudan.html

If you have overlooked the nature and history of Islamic rule over non-Muslims, then why have you overlooked it? [Is it not relevant to Africa, which you seem to be most interested in?] If you have not overlooked it, then what are your views or conclusions in its regard? Does it have any parallels to apartheid or racism [albeit the dhimma was based on religious identity rather than skin color or genetic race]? How do you feel about the state of the millions of foreign workers in the Persian Gulf sheikdoms and emirates? Do they have citizens' rights or civil rights? Is their plight of any concern to the rest of the world?

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

Well, I think you are confusing the relationship between population movements and the institutional structure of political power. First, and as an example, didn't General Franco only find it possible to end the Spanish Republic because he was at the head of Muslim troops from Morocco? And second, look around and you'll see that there's an awful lot of Muslims in Spain today, many of whom appear to be perfectly liberated Spanish citizens (admittedly, there's also an awful lot of Brits there who aren't)?

Then again, there is Greece (and Palestine and Iraq, and for that matter, Albania, &c) which is still playing out the collapse of the Ottoman empire (for instance, you might note the currency of the EU/Turkey/Cyprus issue). In practical terms, "liberation" movements may well be reversed (eg, Rwanda and Chechnya), but expulsions (I see you prefer the term "kicking out") can be compensated by the return of property or some other form of payment, and by acknowledging the right to return either indefinitely or until, say, the xth generation.

Like it or not, the use of analogues like Spain and Greece has a tendency impose assumptions almost by default. However, I've never ever assumed that the Jews "liberated" their ancestral home. I think, like Herzl, that the zionist impulse was, first, to colonise, and secondly, to establish a Jewish state, and both of these opportunistically, and both at the expense of the Palestinian people.

As a basic principle, we can only begin to understand the intertwining of the moral and the practical in the real world once we are capable of grasping the fact that then is then, and now is now, and tomorrow is tomorrow.... And certainly not before. But I suspect you see the world somewhat differently.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/21/2006

Barrie, a correction to your post of 3:58 am, 12-21-06. You really should stop believing the anti-Israel Arab, or Anglo-Arab [shall we say Britannico-Arab in order not to tar the Celts with the Anglo-Saxon label?], propaganda that so heavily prevails in the parts where you dwell. In fact, the UN General Assembly recommended dividing mandated palestine on 11-29-47 into three political entities, an Arab state, a Jewish state, and an internationally governed corpus separatum in and around Jerusalem. Since all Gen'l Assembly resolutions on political issues are merely recommendations, then you are simply wrong to say that the UN "established" borders. The 11-29-47 resolution recommended borders [earlier proposed by UNSCOP]. I suggest that, before you dismiss my correction of your misunderstanding as "fluff," you examine the UN charter Articles 10-12 that define the powers of the General Assembly. You ought to examine your own "truths," as you earlier suggested that others do.

N. Friedman -
12/21/2006

Barrie,

I have an historical question based on a few analogies.

Spain came about by Christians kicking out the indigenous Muslim population out. Modern Greece came about by Christian Greeks kicking out the indigenous Muslim population. Both were the result of liberation movements. Both areas are still claimed by Muslims as having been stolen by Christians.

Should these above noted liberation movements be reversed? And, if not, how is that different from Jews liberating their ancestral home?

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

How you like two [2] Ts the grownups, Elliot.

"So, Barrie is against peace with Israel. He wants to destroy Israel." This is dumb, completely untrue and libellous; and I wouldn't be surprised if under English law it also constitutes criminal defamation. But, then, you may well be able to defend it on grounds of your total disconnection from, and lack of awareness of, anything approaching any known concept of reality.

Again, "There never was a "palestinian people" in all history." This is the sort of evidence you will be well advised to present to support your defence and place it in the best possible light. If the worst should come to the worst, I promise I will offer a supporting statement in mitigation on your behalf.

Perhaps you have assumed that you can rely on you all too evident ignorance; however, bear in mind the principle that ignorantia legis neminem excusant.

The rest of your post is, of course, just the usual ahistoric rhetorical fluff we have come to expect from you

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

Oh. Have a Merry Christmas, Elliott.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

How you like two [2] Ts the grownups, Elliot.

"So, Barrie is against peace with Israel. He wants to destroy Israel." This is dumb, completely untrue and libellous; and I wouldn't be surprised if under English law it also constitutes criminal defamation. But, then, you may well be able to defend it on grounds of your total disconnection from, and lack of awareness of, anything approaching any known concept of reality.

Again, "There never was a "palestinian people" in all history." This is the sort of evidence you will be well advised to present to support your defence and place it in the best possible light. If the worst should come to the worst, I promise I will offer a supporting statement in mitigation on your behalf.

Perhaps you have assumed that you can rely on you all too evident ignorance; however, bear in mind the principle that ignorantia legis neminem excusant.

The rest of your post is, of course, just the usual ahistoric rhetorical fluff we have come to expect from you

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

"Barrie, how nice of you to confirm what I had written. If it's in the Guardian, it must be true. See, BCCI did transfer funds for terrorists."

That's a pretty amazing (perhaps I might attempt to dignify it with the term counter-intuitive- but no..., maybe not) construction to place on the article I quoted from the Guardian. An unremitting belief in the principle of contraria contrariis curantur, perhaps? Or just plain dumb? Who knows?

You rally need to read things more carefully in future before you respond otherwise the more sophisticated and knowledgeable amongst us may come to the view that everything you write is a crock of aging faecal matter. As, indeed, are the points you seek to make in your numbered paragraphs.

Omnem movere lapidem, my dear Elliott, for the sake of your readers.

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

Give in, perhaps?

Elliott Aron Green -
12/21/2006

N, you're right about Lord Levy's influence and/or position, and about the EU leadership, of course. But as one of Barrie's later posts clearly indicates, Arab resistance to Israel must go on ad infinitum and the "palestinian people" have inalienable rights, that is, the right to destroy Israel, and so on. So we are not speaking with someone who has different views about attaining peace, but rather with an avowed enemy. How do we deal with that?

Elliott Aron Green -
12/21/2006

So, Barrie is against peace with Israel. He wants to destroy Israel. But the Arabs usurped Jewish land. There never was a "palestinian people" in all history. The Jews have a right to return to their homeland. The notion of a "palestinian people" was not accepted even by the palestinian Arabs before the 1960s. This notion was invented by psychological warfare experts, primarily British I believe.
Even the PLO charter asserts the ARAB identity of the Palestinian Arab people and of the land that they now call palestine [see PLO charter Article I]. Traditionally, the Arabs/Muslims did not use the name palestine nor Filastin [which was only a part of the country, what Rome/Byzantium had called Palaestina Prima]. Indeed, there was no territorial entity under Mamluk or Ottoman rule that either bore the name
Filastin or that had borders anything like the borders of the League of Nations palestine mandate [whether we restrict the name "palestine mandate" to west of the Jordan river or to the whole mandated palestine which included Transjordan]. The very name Syria Palaestina was applied to the Provincia Iudaea by emperor Hadrian as an act of imperialist suppression of the Jewish nation [in 135 CE]. On this see the Catholic historian Felix Abel. If you agree that peoples have a right to return to their lands, if driven out or forced out [as you claim happened to the palestinian Arabs], then the Jews had and have the right to return to their ancient land, in which by the way Jews were a considerable part of the population until the Crusader massacres. The Muslim/Arab oppression of Jews before the Crusades had driven many Jews to leave the Land of Israel, and even to leave the Islamic domain for Europe. Jews could not live in Germany east of the Rhine before Charlemagne let them and it was at this time that Jews were leaving Israel and other Muslim-ruled lands for Europe. On this see, Cecil Roth in the World History of the Jewish People, Moshe Gil, Avraham Grossman, etc.

It is noteworthy that the palestinian Arab leadership --the Arab Higher Committee for Palestine-- denied the existence of a place called "palestine" in history through expert witnesses testifying on behalf of the Arab Higher Committee before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry on Palestine [1946]. These witnesses claimed that the country was part of Syria. So, Barrie, even your Arab love objects denied that there was a palestine or a palestinian people. Now, do you think that the Germans should have been punished after WW2 and the Holocaust by loss of huge territories to Poland and the USSR? The palestinian Arabs too took part in the Nazi crimes. Omar admits this but claims mitigating circumstances. How about you?
Do you view the UN as in any sense a legitimate arbiter of morality or of the world's destiny?
Do you believe that the Western powers, including the UK, have the right to expiate and culminate their own Judeophobia by means of an invented "palestinian people"? Are you aware that neither Western nor Arab historiography saw a "palestinian people" before the mid-20th century, when it became expedient for the purpose of Judeophobia? What historical documentary sources can you point to for the existence of a "palestinian people" before the mid-20th century? On the other hand, Greek and Roman historians and early Christian historians like Eusebios and Sozomenos report many Jews living in the Land of Israel. Do you deny that Jews were a substantial part of the country's population up to the Crusader massacres? Did the Jews ever have a right of return and when did that right expire, if it did expire?

Now, one might argue that, yes, the land was Jewish before the Arabs conquered it, but since they conquered it and have lived there for a long time, then it is theirs. But on the same principles, one could argue that the land had become Arab, but since the Jews have conquered it [or reconquered it], and have held it for so many years, now it is theirs. How do you respond to that? Do you deny the ancient and medieval history of the land? Do you deny that Jews in the Land after the Arab conquest were oppressed in the dhimmi status?

By what right do you deny the Jewish right to return, if such rights exist in principle?

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

I'll reply to both of you at once because you cover much the same territory, albeit by different routes.

First point: I can see no underpinning moral argument for the imposition of a Jewish state on Palestinian lands, so I, logically, see no basis for what I would class as your super-structural and decorative "moral" arguments in support of that state and its actions.

Second point, I can understand, and would support, practical political arguments which favour a two state or a bi-national state solution to the problem of a Jewish state in Palestine and it is possible to firmly ground either of these solutions on the moral imperative of acheiving a stable, equitable and workable peace in the future.

Third point, I have spent time in Northern Ireland and the moral positon N outlines on the Ulster plantations precisely reflects my own viewpoint - but we have what we have, and we are where we are in Ulster, and the moral imperative of a stable, equitable and workable peace requires a political solution, not continued finger pointing, not shouting without listening, nor picking up the gun to settle the problems left by contentious histories.

The "moral" and historical claims of competing groups will influence any political solution, but no one claimant should be allowed to determine and impose a settlement in its entirety. That was the way of Versailles and I think most of us would agree that it didn't turn out terribly well. Sadly, but correctly in my view, the position of Israel and - being, of course, an avid reader of the LRB - the Jewish lobby is increasingly perceived as being one of unilateral imposition which is both immoral and strategically incompetent if Israel wishes to ensure its own survival.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/21/2006

Suppose we agree that "two wrongs don't make a right" or that "the crimes of others" don't "mitigate" another, etc. The fact is, as Friedman and others have pointed out, is that the Palestinian Arabs have not suffered that much really, by 20th century standards, whether their suffering was their own fault, perhaps in trying to oppose Jewish rights to what was Jewish land long before the Arab conquest, or perhaps their suffering was the fault was that of Jews, Zionists, imperialists, colonialists, rosicrucians, or whomever.
Yes, they suffered. So did the Germans. But the Palestinian Arabs suffered much less than Sudanese Blacks, for example. And many more Algerian Arabs have been slaughtered by fellow Arabs than the number of Palestinian Arabs killed by Jews since 1948. Hence, the question is: Why do the sufferings of the Palestinian Arabs get the lion's share of media attention, of UN deliberation [in the Sec. Council, the GA, and the "human rights" commission/council], and of "humanitarian" money?? Why is the UN and the Hague ICJ Court so worried about the WALL, God save us, that Israel has partially built --for whatever reason-- while massacres go in Darfur, for example???
Now I ask both Barrie and Omar to stop this "2 wrongs don't make a right" bizness and answer Why the sufferings of Palestinian Arabs, real or alleged or exaggerated, get so much attention while Darfur and other suffering people and places get so little????

DeWayne Edward Benson -
12/21/2006

Jimmy Carter with exception of showing sympathy for the radical-minority known as the secular Zionist (essentially in control of Israel), was essentially correct about what is going on in Palestine.
The Judiac Jew (called Orthodox Jew) who had been in Palestine well before this secular movement, knew from the beginning that these Jewish-radicals would be a danger to all people living in that part of the world.
I've done a study that might be of interest, if this post is left on line. Check out my study about present day Israel and Israel of prophecy. At:http://mywebpages.comcast.net/rtpricetag/Israel.html

Barrie Lambert -
12/21/2006

Hi again, N

I can see why you need to think (or, if I'm being too unfair, assert) that "Palestinian Arabs are largely the source of their own problem" given the general position on Israel which you have frequently argued, with great skill, on this website.

But even from the perspective you have chosen to adopt, have you never stood back and thought, even once, that most - if not all - of the Palestinians' problems have been the direct result of the Jewish claim of a right to, first, a National Home, and second, a specifically Jewish state on Palestinian land?

I think your reliance on a fundamentally distorted "history" is an unconscious recognition of, first, the unsavoury nature of the Israeli state; second, how flakey its claims to continued statehood have become as it continues to subvert and pursue expansionist policies against its neighbours; and third, and in particular, its illegal control of territory beyond the borders established by the United Nations in 1948.

Arnold Shcherban -
12/20/2006

The argument the one who finance the book orders or even necessarily influences its ideology or concept is
plainly wrong.
Just give you just one very illustrative example:
I know you would agree that Chomsky is the ideological archi-enemy
of US governments and Pentagon, in particular. But it was Pentagon who finance some of his so-called anti-American books. Go figure...
So not everything is so plain and obvious in financing books matters as you tried to picture ("follow the money"). Thus your respective argument, while correct on many occasions, is not a good one in general.

art eckstein -
12/20/2006

Barrie, you need to take the violent tone and brute ignorance of Omar Ibrahim Baker VERY seriously, as well as his savage goal. It's not a two-state solution, is it? No, it's not. He's a person who defends the Palestinian alliance with the Nazis.

You must face the fact that the Middle East isn't nice 1945 Europe where people seek compromise. There is no one for the Israelis to talk to. Scolding them about finding someone to talk to, while fondly patting the death-cult Palestinians on the head, is morally repulsive.

Israelis put mass murderers of civilians in jail; that's the case of Baruch Goldstein, the Hebron mosque murderer. Palestinians name streets after the murderers of civilians. That's the case both with Amin el Husseini (who instigated the 1929 Hebron massacre in which twice as many Jews were killed as Arabs were killed by Goldstein,) as well as with recent suicide/homicide bombers,

Were the Israelis to name streets and stadiums after Goldstein, make him an official national hero, THEN and only THEN would they be--not worse than the Palestinians but EQUAL to them in morality.

Face facts.

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Barrie,

Once again, morality starts at home. Britain, which, by Israeli and world standards, has very dirty fingers, is not the sort of country to tell the Israelis about anything other than how best to lord it over others. And, Britain is not from a region which has solved many problems without large numbers of people dying.

My suggestion: Britain out of Northern Ireland and bring the British settlers back home. Until Britain does that, people from your country don't have the moral authority to wax moral to others.

In answer to your question, Israel is located in a part of the world which has a great deal in common with Medieval Europe. Disputes do not get settled in such an environment. Some of that region's disputes have lasted more than a thousand years; some longer.

That means that Utopian ideas that Arabs and Jews will live in a single state are not only naive. They suggest either ignorance of the region or hatred of Jews and/or Arabs.

At present, it is not remotely apparent that a two state solution is anything other than pie in the sky either. But, that is the option which the world thinks wise.

Maybe the Palestinian Arab state could confederate with Jordan. That would solve the viability issue. It would not give Palestinian Arabs ammunition to continue the fight thereafter as Jordan appears, at least for the moment, to prefer a settlement, not an interim arrangement, as the HAMAS and FATAH have always proposed. That idea may also prove to be pie in the sky. But, it is no worse than the two state solution.

And note - and read people like Omar carefully -, Palestinian Arabs really do not want a two state solution so this dispute is really unlikely to settle in our lifetimes, no matter what scenario is tried.

As I said, I do not believe there is likely a settlement to be had. I do not believe that it is merely a case of getting to where everyone knows they need to get. I think that groups like HAMAS mean what they say, meaning, they are interested only in an interim arrangement, what they call a hudna. A hudna is - and we are talking about a position coming from an Islamist party so the terminology is important to understand, as it is likely meant in earnest - is an interim arrangement designed to allow the Muslim side to prepare for war when the time is ripe. And, HAMAS offers that idea only if Israel withdraws from all disputed land and allows the children of refugees into Israel. Or, in simple terms, the hudna idea is not even made with the idea of being accepted by Israel. It is not even the beginning of a conversation.

In short, I think we need to be realistic about this dispute. It is not about oppression. It is a dispute between two groups.

I cannot imagine how anyone can side exclusively, as you do, with those who advocate Medeivalism. I cannot imagine how you can overlook the self-inflicted wound that Palestinian Arabs throw largely at themselves in favor of some Medieval victory.

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Barrie,

My view is that Palestinian Arabs are largely the source of their own problem, that, by world standards, they were not oppressed when the second Intifadah began and that in war, bad things happen.

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

A point of information M. Just let me see if I can get it straight. Do you mean that, in relative terms, the Palestinians are in pretty good shape and should be suitably grateful to the rest of the world, including all their oppressors, because they have not yet been sold into slavery by the Israeli Jews? And even if they were, it still wouldn't be worth mentioning it as a possible crime of the century because so many other really, really, really bad things are going on and happening to people who are not Palestinians, and for that they should be twice grateful?

E. Simon -
12/20/2006

It's a good question, Barrrriiieeee. Because without clarification, we will perhaps be compelled to assume that the administration is being urged to pressure Israel in exchange for Arab friendship and goodwill.

I suggest you someday study the concepts of quid pro quo and strategic interests. Carrots and sticks we'll cover when your understanding of basic political science advances beyond the 12th grade level.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/20/2006

This bigot is for "numerus clausus" (or quotas) for Jews. Actually the system of admission in the U.S. universities has been put in place around 1900 because too many Jews were admitted through the merit system (there is a very interesting book "The Chosen" by Jerome Karabel - a sociology professor at U.C. Berkeley). If you don't have the time to read it there is a short description here:

Racism and bigotry is a state of mind and this Clarke figure has his mind very fixed on it. Too many Freudian slips to deny it.

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

Hi N, a respect for facts is very often regarded as reactionary: that is why so many wish to rewrite history to favour their own interests. And this is why I'm a little picky about the use of language.

Elliott, who likes two [2] Ts, argues that "The mandate was a trust of which the beneficiary was the Jewish people and the executor was Britain." I merely queried his use, to make a little joke, of the term "trust" in this context and the other legal jiggery pokery of which people with weak arguments are so inordinately fond.

As you are no doubt aware, the idea of a beneficial trust is pretty much restricted to those countries whose legal systems are grounded on the common law. Trusts operate in the interests, or at least intended to operate in the interests, of the beneficiaries, and the extent to which they do so, or fail to do so, can readily be tested in the courts.

The notion of the international supervision of colonies through a League of Nations mandate was President Wilson's singular gift to the imperial powers, if not necessarily to the inhabitants of their newly aquired territories. The idea that mandates were held "in trust" provided a rhetorical - but certainly never a legal - gloss.

The current system of United Nations "trusteeship" has evolved as a slightly more rigorous version of the mandate system but even so cannot approach the positive duties and powers clearly demanded of a trustee under the common law and which Elliott, who likes two [2] Ts, attempts to suggest were embedded in the Palestine Mandate held by HMG. Simply not so, and never intended to be so.

Coming down from my smug height I, unlike you cannot say, "so what", even without the passive-aggression schtick I note is offered by you about the ever so teensy weensy number of deaths and displacements suffered in Palestine since, say, and I suppose this is your starting point, the Balfour Declaration(?) Sure, the numbers are disputed and all. And sure lots of bad things have happened to other peoples. But I wonder if you really want an equitable workable settlement in Palestine, and would instead prefer the violence to go on, and on, and on, as long it is the Palestinians who do most of the dying and suffering and who pay the largest share of all the human and other costs of a modern vampire state? And, of course, as long as America still remains Israel's special friend?

A. M. Eckstein -
12/20/2006

Barrie: A reminder:

Two useful definitions of anti-semitism are relevant here:

1. The EU's definiton of anti-semitism in the context of the State of Israel includes the following:

"Applying double standards by requiring of it behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

2. Similar is the following from Thomas Friedman:

"[C]riticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest"

(NY Times, Oct. 16, 2002)

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Trevor,

I enjoy your posts as well.

You write: "For the purposes of this discussion, the point that I make is that modern (if you will) nationalism has almost always led to racism."

I am not sure that nationalism always leads to racism. In the US, racists have largely retreated to the edges of society. Government sanctioned racism - other than directed in theory toward remedying past wrongs (and even that is challenged) - has disappeared.

That improvement occurred in a nation state. In fact, it has occurred in the world's premier nation state.

So far as I can tell, overt racism is not likely to reappear in the US anytime soon. And, even private racism, which certainly continues to some extent, is fading as well. So, US history suggests a good counterexample to your theory.

At present, the places where hatred of others is on the rise is in Europe and in the Arab regions. Such is largely connected with the Muslim revival movement and reactions thereto. Both regions have convulsions toward transnational arrangements.

I am not a believer in formulas. Most iron laws connecting things are post hoc ergo proctor hoc. So, I cannot agree with your formula.

In the case of Israel, the defining issue is conflict - and, at this point, the Islamic revival movement -, not Israeli racism. The party with which Israel is fighting seeks to throw Jews not just out of the territories but out of Israel proper. This is not just my opinion. It is their opinion, as they have stated repeatedly.

The response, historically, to such types of movements has been a lot more severe than anything the Israelis have done. So, I do not see how racism comes into this at all. The problem is the dispute, not racism.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/20/2006

Wisliceny said at his trial that Husseini visited Auschwitz. Maybe he did; but the new evidence allows the possibility that Wisliceny misremembered Husseini's (historically certain) visit to Oranienburg.

Oranienburg, aka Sachsenhausen, was the original concentration camp, established in 1933, a model for the others: Husseini was thus being shown the model which was spreading over Europe. About 200,000 prisoners passed through Oranienburg; about 50,000 died there; many (not all) were Jews.

Husseini is an important Palestinian figure (though less important in the wider Arab world); his grandson is the current Mufti; a relative was Yasser Arafat (real name: Rahman Abdel-Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini), who was brought up under his tutelage and called him Uncle (not literally the case).

A. M. Eckstein -
12/20/2006

We may not wish to believe Wisliceny (who was on trial for his life). And Husseini is an important figure to the Palestinians (witness Omar's defense of his connection to the Nazis), but not so much to the Arab world in general.

On the other hand, my colleague in the history of the Middle East says that new German research shows Husseini personally visited Oranienburg concentration camp (north of Berlin); it wasn't a death camp per se, but thousands of people were dying there, a very ugly place. So he had seen some things personally.

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Barrie,

I do not get your point of view at all. It strikes me as reactionary. And citing to 13th Century law, as if the word "trust" has not evolved in any way in International law. Are you so sure that the League of Nations used the word "trust" as you suggest? Cite the proof for that position.

Let us assume, arguendo - and just to make you happy -, that, in fact, all of your versions of law and history are correct. So what?

Most of the world's states - at least on my side of the Atlantic - are former colonies. That is not a terrible crime. On your side of the Atlantic, all of the Arab states, save the Jazeera, are all former colonies of Arab and Turkish empires as well.

States have been created by people who migrated. That has occurred all over the world. It is not a great sin.

In the case of Israel, one thing is rather clear. The cost of the event, in lives, has been comparatively small. Millions of people were not killed, as in the Americas and as in the Muslim conquest and colonization of India. Hundreds of thousands of people were not killed either, as has occurred elsewhere. Fifty thousand Palestinian Arabs have not been killed over the course of the entire dispute.

People have been displaced in the creation of many countries. That is the case with modern Poland. It is the case with the former modern Czechoslovakia. It is the case with modern Greece. It is the case with modern Turkey. It is the case with Pakistan and India - with 14 million refugees and a million refugees dying and with no right of return -. All of these displacements involved far more people than Israel displaced. And, in the case of Israel, the Arab states managed to displace 900,000 Jews in retaliation.

Your country has had colonies all over the world. It still has colonies (e.g. the Falklands, N. Ireland). That is the way of the world. Making Israel the focus of your fury is, to me, odd when morality ought start at home.

My suggestion is that Jews have not been worse than other peoples. Compared to your country, Israel is rather angelic and its creation is a comparative picnic.

In other words, it is time to come down from smug heights and to judge others fairly. More Jews might have stayed in their homes and, most likely, died at the hands of honorable and moral Europeans and Arabs. Jews are very sorry to inconvenience you with their dispute - tame by your country's standards (e.g. in Iraq, with its alleged 600,000 Iraqi deaths and a million displaced people) - but this is not a great moral problem. It is merely a minor problem, in which comparatively very few people have been killed or harmed, between two groups that have competing claims.

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/20/2006

Of course racism is not limited to nations. Nevertheless, and however fuzzy we make it, nationalism and racism are highly connected forms of particularism historically. I canot and do not argue that racism cannot come from other places. For the purposes of this discussion, the point that I make is that modern (if you will) nationalism has almost always led to racism. This is important in the context of this discussion because of the distinction made by the author of this article and in debate between the two (racism in South Africa, nationalism in Israel)... a distinction which I would argue does not stand.

I look forward to your response, because I am enjoying our discussion. I know tha the nature of these lists is such that they eventually must stop, however, and I too must turn back to work, but thank you for engaging me.

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/20/2006

Sorry, my post was not precise. I was referring to this comment:
"The scholarship on this topic suggests, so far as I know, that Arabs, by and large, stand in about the same position as most Europeans. "

I have no sympathy for the Mufti, whose inhumanity in this case is quite well documented. However citing his crimes as against say the aid given by the Imam of the Grand Mosque in Paris, who found ways to get hundreds of Jews registered as Muslims, tells the story of only two men. Rather, I was hoping to have some evidence as to the quantifiability of what was said above. I have not seen such.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/20/2006

At the Nuremberg Trials in July 1946, Dieter Wisliceny [EICHMANN'S CHIEF DEPUTY] testified:

"The Mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser of Eichmann and Himmler in the execution of this plan... He was one of Eichmann's best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measureS."

Wisliceny also testified that after the Mufti's arrival in Germany he had paid a visit to Himmler and shortly afterwards (late in 1941 or early in 1942) had visited Eichmann in his Berlin office at Kürfurstrasse, 116. According to Wisliceny, Eichmann told him that he had brought the Mufti to a special room where he showed him maps illustrating the distribution of the Jewish population in various European countries and delivered a detailed report on the solution of the Jewish problem in Europe.

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Peter,

Again, defending people accused of crimes is an honorable, moral thing. It helps keep all of us from the arbitrary encroachment of the government. Forcing the government to prove its case is part and parcel of that, whether or not a particular defendant may be guilty.

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Barrie,

Might we apply your definition of Apartheid to France, with its millions of non-citizen Muslims, with no political representation to speak of in the government, in the courts (other than as defendants), in the diplomatic corp, etc., living in segregated villages that surround beautiful metropolises and, to top that off, in conflict with the government? If not, why not? If you ask me, it is a lot worse than what you accuse Israel of. In fact, it is not even a close call.

What I think, Barrie, is that you apply definitions to Israel that, if you look a bit closer to home, apply to most every European state. Perhaps this is a bit of scapegoating. I am not sure. But, frankly, it stinks.

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Omar,

In Sudan, 2 million people died due to the Jihad, people were forcibly converted to Islam, with food being used as a weapon of coercion for religious conversion, children were taken from their parents and converted to Islam as well, slavery was re-instituted and defended as being mandated by the Koran, with hundreds of thousands of people sold as slaves including into the Gulf states. That is barbarism of a type that Palestinian Arabs simply have not suffered - nothing even close. And, it is a crime of the Islamism you claim might bring a just world but which, in fact, has brought nothing but hardship and suffering wherever it gains a foothold.

Palestinian Arabs, no matter how you assert their problems, have not had that sort of ordeal. They did not even have the ordeal of Jews expelled from Arab lands who simply lost everything they had and had to move up to a thousand of miles from their homes, not ten miles away into the same culture, etc.. Palestinian Arabs have not been forced to convert to Judaism. They have not been sold into slavery. They have not had casualties in the millions - in fact, not in the hundreds of thousands - of people. They have, in fact, probably lost more people to the war with Jordan than in all the wars with Israel. And, being displaced was a commonplace thing in the 20th Century, not to mention before that time. It is, in fact, still a commonplace thing (e.g. in Sudan).

I recall reading that there are 50 million refugees in the world. No other refugee group refuses to settle where they can find refuge. That is money taken by Palestinian Arabs which could be used to help people who are not pigheaded, wanting only to live a life. My wife was a refugee yet she learned to live in a different culture. So, if you ask me, the Palestinian Arab cause - at least as far as the refugee position is concerned - is not only suspect and highly troubling but it is deeply immoral.

You want to help the Palestinian Arabs. How about beginning by saying things that are plausible, not nonsense asserted about Palestinians suffering the crime of the century nonsense - evidently overlooking expulsions on far larger scale right in Europe and Arab lands and India and Pakistan and Turkey and Greece, etc., etc.

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Peter,

It is not amoral to provide the best available legal defense, at least not in my view. Our system works by forcing the government to prove its case. That preserves everyone's freedom.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/20/2006

Great software, I use it as document organizer. I am sure historians can make a better use of it than a computer professional. It is one of the best free software packages I've seen lately. Cheers!

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Trevor,

I am not much interested in having a debate about the origins of racism and nationalism and the extent of they share history. My point was and is that racism manages to do rather well with transnational as well as national politics.

I can tell you for a fact on first hand knowledge that it thrived in the transnational USSR. And, it also seems to thrive in transnational Europe. So, whatever the origins are, racism has taken on its own life.

As for fascism, I note that fascism is often tied to a nation but the definition of the nation and the understanding of nation in the normal sense are not ordinarily seen as being the same. Hence, fascism is not necessarily national in the sense you have in mind. Again, I do not mean to lose track of our argument. The point here is, once again, that racism has thrived under various different political arrangements.

I remind you: the world does not have to follow definitions. Things are what they are. And racism is not limited to nations. That is a fact.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/20/2006

Lukasz Hirszowicz, The Third Reich and the Arab East (University of Toronto Press, 1966), p. 313:

Husseini from Berlin wrote to the Bulgarian govt in May 1943 demanding that the emigration of 4500 Jews (4,000 of them children) be prevented; he requested that the former Jewish residences in Berlin be turned over to the Muslim Institute. "Among the documents published after the war are some of his letters to the Governmetns of Bulgaria (May 6, 1943), Italy (June 10, 1943), Romania (June 28, 1943) and Hungary (same date) demanding that they rescind permission for Jewish emigration. He urged that the Jews should be sent to Poland instead, 'where they are under active supervision." [translation: Auschwitz] The confession of one of EICHMANN's collaborators, Dieter Wisliceny, confirms the Mufti's role in preventing Jewish emigration from the European countries occupied by the Nazis. The testimony shows that the Mufti worked closely with the Nazi machinery responsible for exterminating the Jews."

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

OK Elliott with two [2] Ts (or are you Tsing me?). You say:

"The BD called for a "Jewish national home." This was meant to be a soft way of saying a state." Not true. States had been clearly defined since the Westphalian Peace and the League created many states after the Great War and if anyone had intended the JNH to be a state it would have been called a state and the Mandate would have contained terms stipulating this was the case. The rest is zionist mythology, I'm, afraid.

"The Arab leadership too interpreted "national home" to mean a state at that time." The Arab leadership was rightly fearful that the JNH might be the precursor of a Jewish colonial state in Palestine, but they did not interpret the JNH to mean a state at the time.

"The mandate was a trust of which the beneficiary was the Jewish people and the executor was Britain." Not so. The concept of a trust (or 'use') originated with the Dominican Order circa 1215 out of the specific needs a monastic order has to ensure that it can safeguard property inter-generationally. The mandate had none of the qualities of a trust in the sense you imply, or indeed any other sense, although it obviously suits your argument if you can associate the idea (and the reality) of the mandate with Herzl's concept (and the reality) of a Jewish Trust. In fact, and without wishing to offend you, if I didn't know you better, I'd say your statement is so misleading as to be an outright lie.

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Barrie,

Does Lord Levy hold a markedly different view of the Arab Israeli conflict than his boss, the PM? That is news to me. So far as I can tell, he holds, perhaps with a more human face, the same reflexively and retrogressively pro-Arab Muslim views that are typical of elites in Europe - and which might best be called the Andalusian delusion -.

In any event, by American standards, your government's policy - the one Lord Levy is part of - is not exactly close friends with Israel. In fact, his government seems rather obsessed - even claiming that solving the Arab Israeli dispute is necessary to getting Sunni's and Shi'a in Iraq to stop killing each other. That hardly sounds like the view of people who see Israel as a friend.

Lord Levy may be involved in all sorts of shenanigans. But, that has little to do with Israel. And, if he is a serious supporter of Israel, his influence over the government's policy does not appear to prevent the government from using Israel as scapegoat for delusional dreams in Iraq - i.e. that solving the Arab Israeli conflict is important to solving the dispute between Sunni's and Shi'a.

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

It's probably the result of a highly sophisticated Arab plot.

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

Are you suggesting that the other states have been backward in this respect or are you trying to make some other point?

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

Barrie, my response to this post of yours is my post of 11:39 am above your post. I don't know how my got to where it is.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

Barrie, you do like to twist words to fit your meaning. San Remo adopted the Balfour Declaration into international law. The BD called for a "Jewish national home." This was meant to be a soft way of saying a state. The Arab leadership too interpreted "national home" to mean a state at that time.

I do suggest that read the League of Nations mandate of 1922 over and over again, until you understand it. The mandate was a trust of which the beneficiary was the Jewish people and the executor was Britain. The L of N had assigned this trust, the mandate, to the UK. And you tell me that the L of N had no further authority over a trust that it had assigned.

By the way, please look closely at how I spell my first name. It has two [2] Ts.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

N, thanx for giving some of our benighted fellow posters some solid info from B Lewis. What Lewis writes should be compared with Lukasz Hirszowicz's book, The Third Reich and the Arab East, and with Francis Nicosia's book on the Nazi-Arab alliance. I believe that Hirszowicz confirms Lewis using other data/documents. As to Husseini knowing the number of Holocaust victims before this was publicly known, I believe that both Lewis and Hirszowicz point to a radio broadcast to the Arabs by Husseini [the British-appointed mufti of Jerusalem] in 1944. He said something like: Arab brethren, don't fear the Jews. They were 17 million before the war but now are only 11 million. [This is not a quote]. Hence, he knew of the 6 million murdered. `Umar thinks it's all OK. So let's not have hard feelings. After all, `Umar and Barrie and Peter C do not seem too put out that hundreds of Arabs are slaughtered by fellow Arabs in Iraq every month or every week.

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

Elliot, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make but as a point of information (which I'm sure you'll ignore) San Remo provided for neither an Arab state nor a Jewish State.

As I pointed out earlier in this debate, the mandate used the terms "...existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..." and "...all the inhabitants of Palestine..." and what you suggest is a nonsense. By definition, the inhabitants of Mandatory Palestine were (and their descendants are) Palestinians.

Your second paragraph is even more ludicrous. Article 1 of the Mandate clearly stipulates "The Mandatory shall have full powers of legislation and of administration, save as they be limited by the terms of this mandate". The League of Nations had no judicial authority in this matter and my "precious HMG did not respect international law", quite rightly, because there was simply no law and no judgement for it to respect or disrespect other than the terms of the mandate itself which categorically states, as I have said, "that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine...".

And the rest of your post is just propagandistic nonsense which I'm sure even you take with a pinch of salt - and whatever else may take your fancy. But in case you do happen to think this flummadiddle blarney might be true, why not ask Mummy to ask Santa to bring you a brand new Yule-tide bullshit detector when he calls on Christmas day to save the rest of us from having to read it?

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Trevor,

If you are referring to me, Bernard Lewis' book Semites and Anti-Semites refers to al-Husseini knowing the number of Jews being killed - and having accurate knowledge thereof - prior to such information being known publicly.

Lewis' writes, in an article for The American Scholar but reproduced on this website at http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/21832.html :

Then came the Third Reich, with connections to the Arab world and, later, to other Muslim countries. Now that the German archives are open, we know that within weeks of Hitler’s coming to power in 1933, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem got in touch with the German consul general in Jerusalem, Doctor Heinrich Wolff, and offered his services. It is interesting that the common image of the Germans pursuing the Arabs is the reverse of what happened. The Arabs were pursuing the Germans, and the Germans were very reluctant to get involved. Dr. Wolff recommended, and his government agreed, that as long as there was any hope of making a deal with the British Empire and establishing a kind of Aryan-Nordic axis in the West, it would be pointless to antagonize the British by supporting the Arabs.

But then things gradually changed, particularly after the Munich Conference in 1938. That was the turning point, when the German government finally decided that there was no deal to be made with Britain, no Aryan axis. Then the Germans turned their attention more seriously to the Arabs, responding at last to their approaches, and from then on the relationship developed very swiftly.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

Barrie, how nice of you to confirm what I had written. If it's in the Guardian, it must be true. See, BCCI did transfer funds for terrorists.

Now, to get back to subjects addressed above.
1-- the palestinian authority set up by arafat and others in 1994 had a law forbidding Jews to buy real estate in areas that the PA claimed. For this reason, several Arabs suspected or accused [perhaps for other reasons] of selling land to Jews were murdered by the PA police while Rabin, Peres and Netanyahu were prime minister, for allegedly selling land to Jews. Their bodies were dumped in fields outside Ramallah. Is it racist to forbid Jews to buy land or forbid others to sell land to Jews?

2-- Then, was it racist of the British and the Palestinian Arabs to refuse Jewish immigration into the Land of Israel [what you call palestine] during the Holocaust? James Allen charges that Israel has a racist immigration policy. How about the British and palestinian Arabs? It seems that you and Omar think it would was perfectly OK to keep Jews out. How about if the English kept Celts, like the Welsh or the Cornish, out of England? England was once a Celtic domain, was it not? Would the English have the right to keep out Celts? How then did the Arabs have the right to keep Jews out of Israel during the Holocaust? Bear in mind that the Arabs and other Muslims have been oppressing Jews for more than a thousand years, in Israel and elsewhere.

Barrie, I was considering closing with a famous and gracious Celtic greeting, Pog-a-ma-hon. But then I decided that some folks might consider it rather rude to use words that most don't understand. So, Pax vobiscum.

N. Friedman -
12/20/2006

Omar,

It is so refreshing to see the Palestinian Arab cause argued from a Palestinian Arab, rather than an European, perspective.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/20/2006

By the way, Georgia is the only state in the Union that lynched a Jew (of course innocent). I am sure that's the reason you LOVE Jimmy Carter.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/20/2006

By the way, Georgia is the only state in the Union that lynched a Jew (of course innocent). I am sure that's the reason you LOVE Jimmy Carter.

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

Do you think the Bank of England are aware of this? Don't you think you shoould tell them? Oh, let me see now. I wonder if this is the source of the story?

Jon Henley in Paris
Wednesday October 10, 2001
The Guardian

"Osama bin Laden's extensive financial interests in Britain are outlined today in a French parliamentary report that says the City is a money laundering haven for billions of pounds of tainted and terrorist money.

Up to 40 companies, banks and individuals based in Britain can legitimately be suspected of maintaining direct or indirect relations with the terrorist, according to a 70-page annexe, The Economic Environment of Osama bin Laden, attached to the French report. Compiled by an independent team of financial experts whose identity the French parliamentarians have undertaken not to reveal, the annexe reveals that the structure of Bin Laden's financial network bears a striking similarity to that used by the collapsed BCCI bank for its fraudulent operations in the 1980s."

Aren't the French clever? And look at the precision of the language used by the Guardian to summarise some of the detail contained in the report's annexe: "...Bin Laden's financial network bears a striking similarity to that used by the collapsed BCCI bank..." You may well choose to take a lesson from this approach to the use of language.

Oh, and being a Celt is a matter of cultural identity rather than simple genetics - or even ethnicity in its narrower sense. For example, many of the younger Scottish pipe bands have members from very different ethnic backgrounds, but they walk like Scots, talk like Scots and pipe like Scots, and it is, therefore, reasonable to infer that they are Scots. And my experience is that Scottish pipers prefer to call their own tune unless, of course, it is a lady's request.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

Peter C, dear chap. You are rather arrogant and insufferably holier than thou. Is that a British trait? Perhaps you, not YA, are the one who needs to wash out his mouth with soap.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

Barrie, civil and religious rights are not national-political rights. That is, the L of N mandate of 1922 [following the San Remo decision of 1920] did not provide for an Arab state in Israel, much less a "palestinian state" since no one then, especially NOT the Arabs in the country, believed in a "palestinian people". Indeed, Arab expert witnesses before the Anglo-American Committee of Inquiry in 1946 testified that there was no such place as "palestine" in history. `Umar uses the term "palestinians" quite anachronistically.

Barrie, civil and religious rights yes. But Jewish immigration did not threaten them. In any case, for your info, the Permanent Mandates Commission of the League of Nations found the UK to be in violation of the Mandate. The UK did not care. Your precious HMG did not respect international law. What you say boils down to a willingness, if not eagerness, to see the Jews slaughtered by the Germans. And you have the hutspah to depiect us as immoral. By the way, I do hope that you've taken up Art's suggestion and looked up pix of the Mufti on the Internet. Try a site called "Bibliotheque Proche Orientale." Plenty of pix there. It will warm the cockles and mussels of your heart.

`Umar, the Arabs conquered the Land of Israel in the years 634-640, as you understand. However, they were a minority of the population for several centuries more. At the time of the Crusades, the Arab-Muslims were a minority and Jews were a substantial part of the population [not a majority, to be sure]. The Crusaders, perhaps including some of Barrie and Peter C's ancestors, massacred much of the population, especially Jews, thus rendering the Jews a small minority in Israel. Bear in mind, `Umar, that Arab oppression of dhimmis had already led many Jews to emigrate before the Crusades. So the Arab-Muslim predominance in the Land goes back only some 746 years to 1260 CE, after the brief Mongol conquest.
Let me mention Ibn Taymiyya, `Umar, since you had asked my source for his rejection of Jerusalem as a Muslim holy city. I have heard lectures by Prof Menashe Harel in which he made this point. I also have several articles around the house which discuss the Muslim attitudes towards Jerusalem. If I have time I will see if I can find a reference for Ibn Taymiyya.

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/20/2006

Please CITE. If the evidence actually shows what you suggest, I will concede the point. I doubt you can muster more than anecdote in this case, however. I know much of the scholarship on this issue and I none of it is quantitative enough to make this sort of assessment.

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/20/2006

Mr. Friedman,

I'm afraid I must disagree with your assertion. Historically, racism and nationalism are quite highly linked. The evolution of the English enlightenment notion of nation, for example, is closely associated with the notion of exclusion of non-citizens (Locke's "non-bred"). Here one could cite Homi Bhaba if necessary. The nationalisms that I study, and to some degree really dig - emancipatory nationalism in late colonial Africa - is very closely associated with 'tribalism' (which is very much a modern form or racism). As for Fascism being trans-national, as you assert, have you ever read Mussolini's 1932 Definition of Fascism? I quote: "For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. " I'm both unsure of your position and a bit concerned at its apparent distortions.

I apologize for being so trite.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/20/2006

How insolent can one be (Dershowitz would say full of chutzpah) to deny any person in the USA the right to hire
the lawyer he wants and any lawyer in the USA to defend any client he wants and all this on pretended "high moral grounds"? Your bigotry makes me puke! OJ case was tried in the same system that exonerated Robert Blake and where Barry Shack (another "filthy" rich Jew who made money on OJ) saved a lot of death row inmates (pro bono) from the injustice of the same system.
You are one of the most dishonest, bigoted and immoral people writing here.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

Barrie, I do recall very clearly reading that BCCI transferred $$ for terrorists as well as for drug dealers. If that bank helped drug dealers, why wouldn't it also have helped terrorists? Especially since the democratically elected Shaykh of Abu Dhabi was already helping to fund Fatah/PLO?

By the way, I was charmed to know that you believe in ethnically transmitted traits. What was it? "We Celts..."? If so, then could Arabs and/or Jews have ethnic traits genetically transmitted? By the way, where do you think the Jews came from? Who were the Jews in Ukraine & Belarus? Were they perhaps just some Slavs who took a correspondence course in an interesting Oriental religion? Perhaps you could persuade the Tsar that we really belong among his subjects. Perhaps you could go to Herr Hitler and persuade him that we really belong in Europe. On the other hand, Hitler told a quite pleased Mufti of Jerusalem [Haj Amin el-Husseini] that he intended to "solve" the Jewish Question in the Arab countries as well as in Europe, as the Mufti and other Arab leaders had requested.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/20/2006

You are a bigot and a liar brainwashed by the "protocols of the elders of Zion" to link Jews and money! Here you have a quote from "The Huffington Post"

"While he is known for defending clients such as Anatoly Sharansky, Claus von Bülow, O.J. Simpson, Michael Milken and Mike Tyson, he continues to represent numerous indigent defendants and takes half of his cases pro bono."

The link may not work and if it doesn't look for "Bio: Alan Dershowitz" on the site.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

For peter c and barrie in re history of the Land of Israel. The name palestine was applied by emperor Hadrian to the Land of Israel, what Rome had previously called Provincia Ivdaea, as an act of imperialist suppression:http://www.esek.com/jerusalem/iudaea.html

Sorry, I misinterpreted Peter K's reference to Jewish villages in Gaza "ethnically cleansed" by Sharon, who probably suffered his first stroke five years ago or so [quoth my cardiologist] and was not functioning at full mental health. I thought that Peter K was referring to Jewish places of residence ethnically cleansed by Arabs in 1947-48. Peter K mentioned Gush Qatif [which I read as Gush Etsion due to the late hour] and Kfar Darom which had been earlier ethnically cleansed. It was conquered by Arabs in 1948 and the Jews fled. After 1967, Kfar Darom was resettled by Jews and made into a flourishing place until Sharon --under Western influence-- decided to expel the Jews from there a second time, as Peter K pointed out.
Now, for a list of Jewish places of residence from which Jews were driven out in 1947-48: Gush Etsion, a cluster of four agricultural settlements between Bethlehem and Hebron; Neveh Ya`aqov and `Atarot, agricultural settlements north of Jerusalem, now part of the city; Qalya on the Dead Sea; Kfar Darom in Gaza; Shim`on haTsadiq, Nahalat Shim`on, and Batey Siebenbergen, Jerusalem neighborhoods near the American Colony Hotel, the Orient House, and the Tomb of Simon the Just; the Jewish Quarter of the Jerusalem Old City; and one or a few settlements in the north near the Jordan river and Lake Tiberias [including Mishmar haYarden]. Peter C and Barrie L might take satisfaction from the fact that British forces provided essential military aid to the Arabs in capturing and holding Shim`on haTsadiq and Nahalat Shim`on.
Likewise Barrie and Peter C can rejoice that the British forces and authorities had helped/encouraged Arabs to ethnically cleanse Jews as early as 1920 [the Nebi Musa pogrom]. In 1929, the British helped/encouraged Arabs to drive Jews out of Gaza city and Hebron. In 1936-38 they again helped/encouraged Arabs in driving Jews out of the Muslim & Christian Quarters of the Jerusalem Old City where many Jews had lived since the 19th century. As said above, Shim`on haTsadiq was the first place in the country where people were driven out and did not return after the war [The Jews in south Tel Aviv returned after the war].
Perhaps Barrie & Peter C might want to place an ad in the Guardian or the LBR celebrating these British victories and praising Ernest Bevin and others' contribution to an ethnically pure Arab-ruled "West Bank." As for the "palestinian people" which Peter C or Barrie accused Peter K of claiming had been invented, could they tell me why the ancient Greek and Roman literature know of Jews and Judea [IVDAEA] but not of a "palestinian people"?
By the way, Jerusalem has had a Jewish majority since 1853, according to French historian and diplomat Cesar Famin in Histoire de la rivalite et du protectorat des Eglises chretiennes en Orient [Paris 1853].
Barrie, do try to question your own "truths."

art eckstein -
12/20/2006

Dershowitz SAYS that he does it in order to make sure that if the government deprives people of their rights by finding them guilty of a crime, that they have done so via dotting all the "i's" and crossing all the "t's". He handles a lot of cases pro bono. (OJ funded some of that.) He's not as rich as he could be, and you certainly would want him on your side if you were accused.

Nor is Dershowitz responsible for OJ getting off. The D.A.'s put a racist and a liar on the stand in front of a jury they knew to be unforgiving of anything like that.

Peter, you're still in the "filthy, money-grubbing Jew" mode, I see.

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

Oh, right, Elliot. Another mindless diatribe to little purpose and without point. All bangs and burps, as my Gran used to say. Sometimes I think you are really a state of the art stream of conciousness machine - just plug in a bent mickel and out it all pours.

If it helps to ease your troubled mind, and if President Carter has actually said what you say he has said, then I have great pleasure in informing you that I, too, disagree with him. But he still seems to be a nice man anyway.

art eckstein -
12/20/2006

I apologized for slightly misphrasing something. I haven't lied. You, Omar, have been found out in countless, um, mistakes--the corker being accusing me of ignorance when I referred to the Church of the Holy Wisdom in Constantinople (now of course a mosque, given Muslim benevolence and love of religious diversty): you, in your eminent knowledge of history, thought that St. Sophia was a PERSON, and you viciously attacked me for it. Another corker was denying the historicity of the Mt. Scopas massacre.

Of course, below you seem to believe that the Palestinian alliance with the Nazis is nothing to apologize for.

That's what we're dealing with, folks.

art eckstein -
12/20/2006

Two wrongs do not make a right, Barrie,but Omar's construction of history has only one wrong--and even the Palestinian alliance with the Nazis (which he now acknowledges), and Palestinian leaders' knowledge of the genocidal Nazi program and indeed their participation in it (look at those Google-images of Hussein with the SS), he does NOT acknowledge or consider as a wrong.

Think about it.

This is Palestinian thinking. As Omar has made clear, this kind of thinking, the war and the tactics the Palestinians use, this is the Palestinian CHOICE. Other victims of the population exchanges of 1945-1950 (including 900,000 Jews expelled from Muslim countries, vs. the 700,000 Palestinians) have adjusted to the situation while Palestinians refuse to--they are too "noble" to do so, according to Omar. Very well. But the alliance with Nazism points to the genocidal program of today. It is why one cannot demonize Israel, when the Israelis have nobody to talk to. Omar proudly wants Israel's destruction, as he has made abundantly clear.

The indication of the narcissicism of Omar here is that Omar has called the creation of Israel "the crime of the century." NOT the Holocaust. NOT Stalin's 15 milliion dead in the Gulag (Gorbachev's estimate). NOT the 2 million dead in Cambodia. Certainly not the expulsion of 900,000 Jews from Muslim lands--which is 30% more than the number of Palestinians who were forced to leave parts of the Mandate area by the War of Independence of 1948. Omar knew about Deir Yassin--he didn't know (and did not believe) the Mt. Scopas Massacre, AND he refuses to learn about it. ONLY traumas the happen to Palestinians count for him.

I won't psychologize where Omar's extraordinary autism and myopia,t his extraordinary sense of narcissistic injury so that the Nakba becomes "the Crime of the Century", comes from. But I fear that Omar is typical of what the Israelis have to deal with, and HIS attitude, not the Israelis, explains why there is no peace.

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

Elliot, I'm sure your first question is bound to a riddle dregged from the heart of the Torah but, if I were to take it at face value, the answer is: no, I do not. But then, we Celts pipe for no man but our own, as we say.

As for the rest of it, and as we also say: well, and what has all this got to do with the price of eggs when we're all at home, then? Not much, I fear, as I am wont to reply.

Oh and a correction about BCCI. It wasn't "notorious for transmitting $$$ for terrorists", it was notorious for transmitting $$$ for drug dealers and making corrupt loans to corporations and businessmen. It's forex activities were none too clever either. When you are attempting to re-write history in a big way, it is useful to start with the odd scintilla of fact. That was Goebbell's way anyhow, for what it's worth.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

I regret that the two words in caps were left out of the above post:
"I suggest that a very powerful anti-Israel --fundamentally Judeophobic-- agitprop has been going IN BRITAIN against Israel since 1948, since Israel's war of Independence in which British tanks and fighter aircraft and infantry took direct part in support of the Arabs."

By the way, Barrie, your reference to Lord Levy is hysterically side-splitting. To imagine that this toady to Blair is a friend of Israel, given that he served blair's anti-Israel policy, that he conveyed blair's demands that Israel give in to Arab fascists, is ridiculous.
Now, Barrie, another warm and fuzzy proposal from me. You suggest that one ought to examine one's own "truths." Why don't you do the decent and fair British thing and start with yourself? You could honestly examine your false belief that Israel is an apartheid state. Jiminy Cricket himself denied that Israel was an apartheid state within the 1949 armistice lines [which were not borders]. He said that apartheid only applied to Israel's alleged "occupation" of Judea-Samaria-Gaza. Israel has been out of Gaza for more than a year. Maybe jiminy forgot that. Anyhow, the label apartheid is also falsely applied to Israel's conduct in Judea-Samaria [West Bank]. Why don't you UK Israelophobes and Judeophobes show the milk of human kindness for the Black victims in the Sudan of Arab-Muslim jihadist aggression? If only to prove that you are not immensely hypocritical?

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

Arnold & Barrie, do you deny that he who pays the piper calls the tune?
Maybe Pentagon financing of chomsky does imply something, since chomsky is known as a fanatical attacker of Israel.
As to Barrie's question, I do believe that jiminy is a repulsive and evil person. But I don't think he would change his mind, even if, let's say, the JEWISH LOBBY could put up as much $$$ as the Arab potentates, which the Jews cannot do. The Arab oil potentates do have more $$$ nowadays. Jiminy's family background is Kukluxer. He expressed himself in a racist, anti-black way while governor of Georgia, as well as in an explicitly anti-Jewish way. See a recent article by Julia Gorin [google her + carter]. By the way, it is odd indeed that you view jiminy with such favor. Perhaps it is British insularity, since most Americans who were politically aware during his presidency consider him the worse president ever. Consider the 1980 elections when he was overwhelmingly rejected by the Americans.
By the way, getting back to the funding issue, who funds the London Rev of Books? The usual suspects, perhaps?
N Friedman, your argument against Barrie was excellent. It was factual, logical, and responded to the significant issues involved. But I'm sure you don't expect mere facts and logic to impress a faithful reader of the LRB, as well as perhaps the Guardian, who faithfully imbibes the BBC's agitprop about Israel. I would propose that one's opinions tend to be formed by one's environment. Rousseau wrote in Emile, livre IV, that, at the Sorbonne, it was believed with great conviction that references in the Hebrew Bible [Old Testament] to the messiah referred to Jesus, whereas the Amsterdam rabbis were equally convinced that those references had nothing to do with Jesus at all. I suggest that a very powerful anti-Israel --fundamentally Judeophobic-- agitprop has been going against Israel since 1948, since Israel's war of Independence in which British tanks and fighter aircraft and infantry took direct part in support of the Arabs. I also believe, on the basis of various publications covering the BBC attitude toward the Holocaust, that the UK was a silent partner in it. The BBC, a Foreign Office arm, reported the massacres only at a late stage, tried to minimize Jewish suffering, minimize reporting of the events, minimize exposure of the Brit public to the information, and the like. Consider the experience of Shmul Zigelboym, delegate of the Jewish Socialist Bund to the London Polish govt in exile. He writes of the difficulty in persuading bbc to report on the massacres. I also refer Barrie to articles by Barbara Rogers in History Today and Journal of Holocaust Education [both in 1999]. The name Rogers sounds very authentically British, doesn't it? She wouldn't deceive you, Barrie, as a Jew might, would she? Anyhow, I salute Barbara Rogers for her illuminating research.

Lastly, I want to add to N's material on the funding of the Carter Center the funds supplied by the former BCCI bank, which as we all know [you do know about it, Barrie, don't you?] was a corrupt outfit notorious for transmitting $$$ for terrorists. This bank was owned by the govt and Shaykh of Abu Dhabi. I read this in September/October 1992 in LeMonde. Check the LeMonde index for 1992 for carter center. Now, this goes to show that Arab funding of Carter's Center goes way back. But that is all of no significance, right, Barrie?

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

Aah..., Elliot. Now I understand. Two wrongs do make a right. What about three? Or five? An interesting conundrum, I think you will agree.

However, the mandate cannot bear the construction you place on it when you say, "The 1939 White Paper violated the mandate by severely restricting Jewish immigration into the internationally designated Jewish National Home."

The mandate specifically states in its opening paragraphs:"...it is clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine..."; and, in Article 2,"The mandatory shall be responsible..... for safeguarding the civil and religious rights of all the inhabitants of Palestine, irrespective of race or religion...".

HMG wisely recognised that unrestricted Jewish immigration to Palestine would be prejudicial to the civil and religious rights of non-Jewish communities. HMG's view in the 1939 White Paper, sadly, has been confirmed by history, and continues to be confirmed each and every passing day.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/20/2006

Actually, `Umar, habibna al-rahman w'al-rahim, in your kind and compassionate heart, do you think that you could find a warm refuge for the Jews and Copts and Iraqi Assyrians oppressed and humiliated in their Islamically mandated dhimmi status over the centuries? How about a peaceful corner of your heart for the Hindus slaughtered by Mahmud of Ghazni? Compassion is a divine attribute, is it not? Then, having found a warm place for humiliated harbies and Hindus, let us invite in the forgotten non-Muslim Blacks slaughtered in southern Sudan, off and on, since Sudan was granted independence by the UK in 1956. Arnold, take note. Britain gave Sudan independence as a unitary state rather than a federal or confederal state, although the British knew of the ethnic-religious-racial differences between northern and southern Sudan. All power was placed in the hands of the Arabs and Arabized Muslim Blacks of northern Sudan. See link: http://www.think-israel.org/green.sudan.html
So, the UK created the conditions for ongoing mass murder in the Sudan willy nilly. But it was Muslims who perpetrated the crime, `Umar. The massacres went on for decades in southern Sudan without significant reaction outside the country. Not even the holier than thou British "left" took up the cause against genocide in southern Sudan. Of course, the same British "Left" that overlooks Sudanese genocide is eager to stigmatize, even boycott, Israel for doing things like building a defensive wall, etc. How do we explain that? Any ideas Arnold?

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

A (Freudian?) slip. I fear. I said:

"But deep down, I am more concerned about the role of Lord Levy both as Blair's "representative" in the Middle East and as his badman in the cash for peerages affair, both of which bite deeply into the roots of our democracy";

whereas I meant to say:

"But deep down, I am more concerned about the role of Lord Levy both as Blair's "representative" in the Middle East and as his bagman in the cash for peerages affair, both of which bite deeply into the roots of our democracy";

although both may well be equally true. But that is for the law to decide.

Barrie Lambert -
12/20/2006

"Consider a book about Britain which calls Britain a Nazi country. And suppose the author of the book says he does not, despite the book's title, think Britain is a Nazi country. Normal people would call that sort of title a smear." No. The Rupert Murdoch press would call it a smear, and normal people would yawn and most would ignore it, but some would reflect on it, treating it as a starting point for further thought, not least because dealing with the seemingly paradoxical is an everyday part of the the British experience.

When you suggest that I, "consider that the issue of the extraordinary influence of Arabs - and, more specifically, of Saudi Arabs - in, for example, British politics has been in this month's news", I do, and have, and I am concerned about the breakdown of the rule of law in my country. But deep down, I am more concerned about the role of Lord Levy both as Blair's "representative" in the Middle East and as his badman in the cash for peerages affair, both of which bite deeply into the roots of our democracy.

I certainly do not feel your sense of confidence when you say, "Israelis and Jews simply do not have that sort of influence over either Britain". I think that Israel has had a corrupting influence on Jewish institutions in British life and on British politics, particularly, but not exclusively, in relation to our policies in the Middle East.

I 'm not sure what you mean by, "a great deal of the opinion which obscures the violence and religious bigotry from the Arab Muslim regions is bought and paid for". "Opinion...", "obscures...", (opinion obscures??) "bought and paid for..."? I'm not at all sure what you are referring to but I am know that the same accusation can be made with equal or greater validity of the US, British and Israeli governments' PR practices in the Middle East. That's why all three governments felt they could get away with fighting invasive wars of choice which have turned out to be - and please excuse my French - total fuck ups, and public opinion, at least in the US and UK, took so long to catch up with these disasters.

I am familiar with Benny Green's writing and my confidence in his judgement of day to day events and the major issues contemporary Middle Eastern politics has declined greatly over the past decade.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Arnold,

The guilty are entitled to a defense. That is their right. Once convicted, they lose many rights but until that time, they are entitled to make the government prove its case.

In the OJ case, I heard one of the jurors explain his thoughts. The juror said he thought OJ likely guilty. But he noted - and on this, I think he had a good point - racists lie and thus lack credibility as witnesses. So, we have a case in which the government's attorney allowed its star witness to lie about himself and when the defense displayed the lie - and showed the man to be a liar who uses bigoted language suggesting that he is a racist -, the government failed to prove its case, then and there. So, there really was reasonable doubt.

The defense attorneys, in other words, were merely doing their job of making the government prove its case. The government messed up, rather big time. But, that is where the blame belongs, not on attorneys who dug up the fact that the star witness was a liar and, quite possibly, a racist.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Arnold,

The problem here is that Carter himself says the terms does not apply to Israel. So, we have someone titling a book that makes a combustible allegation he does not believe in. So, the correct question is: for what reason? To sell books? To pay off people who support the Carter Center? To sound trendy? To smear Jews? To smear Israelis? I have no idea. But, I cannot imagine there are good motives.

I do note that money often talks loud and the Carter Center gets a lot of money from Arab funders. And, as is commonly said, always follow the money. It would certainly not be the first time that a writer employed propaganda to please a backer. Just remember all those research projects that show no human hand in global warming - and remember who funded them.

As for the apartheid allegation, it was the official policy of the South African government. Which is to say, it is not a word forced onto that situation by the International community. It was the name used by South Africans for their policy.

The thing that defined the policy, as I understand it, was the absence of rights for black and, to a somewhat lesser extent, "coloreds." Black had no vote. They had no political rights, etc., etc. Israel has no such government policy or even such a policy de facto.

In Israel, Arabs can vote. They have substantial representation in the Israeli Knesset - basically akin to their percentage of the population. There are numerous Arab judges and one Arab on the Israeli High Court. There are Arabs in the diplomatic corp. Again: South Africa did not allow blacks to vote, etc., out of conviction. So, Israel's policy is radically different from that of South Africa. That does not make Israel perfect or mean that there is no discrimination in Israel. It just means that the use of the word apartheid is really inappropriate. And, given that the word apartheid describes a loathsome regime's policy, it is a pretty outrageous charge.

Arnold Shcherban -
12/19/2006

<but Dershowitz is not responsible for OJ getting off, and indeed he played only a peripheral role in the OJ defense>. He's not totally or in any great measure responsible for OJ getting off, but he CONSCIOUSLY AND KNOWINGLY has chosen to be on a LYING side of the argument FOR MONEY, and therefore, is DEFINITELY morally responsible, as a person, not as a Jew. No HONEST person may defend him against this blame.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Art,

And, Husseini had such figures at a time they were not publicly known.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/19/2006

If anyone wishes to google-image "Husseini + Hitler", they will find some fascinating photographs.

Go especially to the bottom-most image on the right of the screen: Husseini reviewing soldiers of the SS Handschar Division--Muslim SS men. Then click on the images. It's a book in Italian, but the pictures there--SS men putting up photos of Husseini; Husseini reviewing German and Muslim SS units, etc--they tell an illuminating story.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/19/2006

No doubt Omar won't take any of THAT, either, as "evidence of anti-semitism," NF!

Arnold Shcherban -
12/19/2006

What a HS nonsense about financing books!
Chomsky being the intellectual archi-enemy of White House, Pentagon and US governmental elite, in general, used to receive finances from ... Pentagon.
So what? Pentagon is hand in hand with
anarchists and communists?
The list of similar examples can be made very long...

Arnold Shcherban -
12/19/2006

Elliot,

If you think that I'm here to defend
US foreign policies with any President
in the Washington office towards any nation, you cannot be farther from the reality. Just look at all my previous comments on almost any HNN topic.
And I'm not a supporter of an assertion that the US Middle East policy, in particular, is totally controlled by Israel or the US Jewish lobby, though, even officially, the latter is the second by power and influence foreign lobby, after British
(not mentioning already that Israel is much much smaller country than UK).
This fact cannot help having a lot of consequences. If say Cuba or Venezuela had five times less lobby than Israel in this country, I bet you 90% of Americans would assert that
Washington is sold to those countries.
But I don't say and think that about Israel, period, so forget it by now.
As I have already mentioned (and in the same context) to objectively judge whether the term Apartheid is applicable to more or less degree to Israel, one just has to compare the
internationally accepted definitions
of apartheid with the past and present actions/practice of Israeli governments, not their declarations or paper laws. I don't know what comes out of such comparison. I just know that certainly noone on these boards made such an analysis. Therefore, noone on these boards has
an intellectual right to accuse Carter
in false labeling of Israel, period.
Otherwise, one cannot consider himself/herself an honest and unbiased commentator, and therefore should be labeled as demagogue and ideologue.
If you find any flaw in this logic of mine, let me know.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Art,

I note that, according to Lewis' Semites and Anti-Semites, the Mufti had rather overly accurate information of the number of Jews being killed to likely be just an accident.

I note that an article he wrote recently mentions the extent to which he tried to create an alliance with the Nazis - and not the other way around. So, we do have a willing executioner, so to speak.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Barrie,

Consider a book about Britain which calls Britain a Nazi country. And suppose the author of the book says he does not, despite the book's title, think Britain is a Nazi country. Normal people would call that sort of title a smear.

The allegation that Israeli is an apartheid country is a simple smear spread mostly by bigots. Apartheid states do not allow the hated group to vote, to hold seats in the national legislature, to serve on the country's high court or to be in the country's diplomatic corp. Such so totally contradicts the apartheid thesis that it shows the bad faith of those who claim apartheid.

I ask you, is it not possible for people to help Palestinian Arabs without using smear tactics? Such refusal to advocate by means of fact is disgraceful.

Now, the fact is that money does buy opinions. Such is asserted regularly - and rightly so - against those who deny the impact of global warming. You, for reasons I do not understand, do not believe that the same phenomena could be at work in connection with support for Arab causes. You, evidently, find it difficult to imagine that one of the world's richest countries, Saudi Arabia, might employ propaganda and pay others to say things favorable about that country's pet causes.

But consider that the issue of the extraordinary influence of Arabs - and, more specifically, of Saudi Arabs - in, for example, British politics has been in this month's news. In Britain, the government has halted an investigation out of concern that Arabia might not like the results and might, in response, make things tough for Britain. See http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-23-2505035-23,00.html . Israelis and Jews simply do not have that sort of influence over either Britain or the US. Compare the filing of criminal charges against people in the "Israeli lobby."

I repeat: a great deal of the opinion which obscures the violence and religious bigotry from the Arab Muslim regions is bought and paid for. It is no different from the opinions issued by people who claim that man has nothing to do with global warming - or, at this point, more sophisticated versions of that argument.

I read the LRB article. I also read well known historian Benny Morris' examination of the "facts" on which the LRB article was based. Morris was not very impressed with the LRB's version of history. See http://thekupfers.typepad.com/tothepoint/2006/04/mustread_benny_.html . Neither am I.

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

Hi N, the word "apartheid" is outrageously offensive in America to those bigots who do not believe Israel to be an aparthied state. But it also seems singularly apt when used by those bigots who do believe Israel to be an aparthied state, and with reason.

The finances of political activity runs from grubby through venal to downright criminal in both our countries - and all three if you happen also to be an Israeli citizen - and the terms "stones" and "glasshouses" come to mind.

My guess is that there is a lot more that will spill out about the dirty dealings of the iron triangle of America, Israel and Iraq over the next year or so which might even have Democratic Senators holding their noses, and the funding of the Carter Centre seems innocent enough in both this context and that defined by the Jewish Lobby - which you may be aware we have been reading about in the London Review of Books and taken great pleasure in emailing the pdf of the article to everyone in our comoputer addressbooks. Still, I think we can both agree that politics has always been a rough trade even at the best of times.

And just in time for my mug of gently steaming Horlicks. What a spendid end to the day!

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

Elliot, isn't this a fairly sleazy attempt to discredit President Carter's ideas which is likely to backfire? I don't know whether JC gets big bucks from the Persian Gulf or not and I suspect that it doesn't really matter very much either way.

Most people will prefer to assume the best of JC and leave it at that, but they may well harden their views against his attackers and the harder, more bitter, and more diffuse the attacks the more likely he gets the benfit of the doubt and his opponents look like whiny adolescents who can't get their own way.

What the hell, why not try it anyway and give it a spin just in case I am wrong.

But then, thinking a little deeper, if you are also suggesting that he might change his line if Israel and its rich supporters were to fill the accounts of the Carter Centre with lots of crisp ones? And if you suspect that President Carter is so buyable, maybe you should propose this as a practical PR measure to the Israeli Embassy. Or just write to him and make him an offer off your own bat. Should be interesting too.

I always have a good choice of practical solutions just for you. Tell me how they come out.

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

Elliot, you're locked into history and oftentimes you make me feel that Cicero got it the wrong way around.

As for Hebron, it is not up to me. It is for negotiators to settle (or not) in difficult circumstances. For many reasons, most of them practical, I favour a bi-national solution but I would sacrifice that (and others may be prepared to sacrifice a two state solution) for a stable and equitable peace. Again, it is down to negotiations and the circumstances at the time. An inequitable peace will not hold and this notion, an whether it is weakly or strongly held, will be one of the circumstances.

I don't think President Carter needs to operate either a simple or a sophisticated smear against `Israel. Israel does that very well on its own, than you very much. And that will be one of the circumstances which will determine whether peace negotiations take place and how they turn out.

And I suspect most honest people will continue to believe that President Carter is honest and has decent and honourable intentions and he will not be condemned at all.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/19/2006

Yes, the point is that the Mufti isn't an ordinary individual Palestinian. The point is that he is THE Palestinian leader. And if he knew how many Jews Hitler was killing "in real time", as NF says, then his behavior becomes even more ghastly--AND politically significant, since he was THE Palestinian leader. That meant: he was the HEAD of the Palestinian movement, he was Hitler's WILLING ALLY, he had many many followers, and he influenced them.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Barrie,

One, titling a book with the word "apartheid" is outrageously offensive and dishonest and has nothing to do with reconciliation because no one other than a bigot thinks Israel is an apartheid state. Even Carter says that is so. So, reconciliation has nothing to do with his intent. Selling books may, perhaps, have something to do with it. Doing the bidding of the Carter Center's backers may be part of it as well. I do not know

Consider that people criticize environmental scientists who write exculpatory papers regarding the environment where the papers are funded by companies that pollute the environment.

And, no, it is not always a vast Anti-Jewish conspiracy. In this case, it is rather a political movement that pays people to misrepresent the Arab Muslim position and religion. It is no conspiracy because it is rather out in the open. Just investigate who pays most of the bills for Middle East studies departments. As Walid Phares notes, 90% comes from one country - Arabia.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/19/2006

`Umar, the Jews were about 14% in 1914, of the population of what later became the palestine mandate in 1920. In fact, during the war, the Ottoman govt deported about 1/3 of the Jews in the country as enemy aliens, mostly Russian subjects. So there were fewer Jews in the country after the war than before it. I should point out that under the Ottoman and Mamluk empires, there was no "palestine," neither in name [i.e., no Filastin] nor in boundaries. For example, Akko was together with Sidon in a vilayet and Jerusalem was part of the Damascus [al-Sham] vilayet. In the mid-19th century, after the Crimean war which focussed on rivalries among Christian powers over Jerusalem, Jerusalem was made into an independent sanjaq. Its governor reported directly to the Ottoman central govt in Constantinople rather than to the wali in Damascus.
Now, `Umar, the Arabs conquered the country in the 7th century. They sent in colonists, they settled, they confiscated lands. They are not indigenous.
Throughout the centuries, Arab Muslims in the land oppressed the Jewish population as dhimmis. It seems that they took Qur'an 9:29 too literally and really believed it their duty to humiliate infidels and make them pay tribute.
Then, during the mandate period, the British govt in the country usually sided with the Arabs. The British tolerated the pogrom incitement of Haj Amin el-Husseini who had been appointed by the British high commissioner. The 1939 White Paper violated the mandate by severely restricting Jewish immigration into the internationally designated Jewish National Home. The Arabs had sought such restrictions on Jewish immigration. Hence, the Arabs and British both contributed to the Holocaust by preventing Jewish refugees from finding a haven, while the chief palestinian Arab leader, the abovementioned Husseini, collaborated in the Holocaust.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/19/2006

N Friedman and others have raised the issue of who supports Carter and the Carter Center with funds. He gets big bucks from the Persian Gulf Arab emirates. Now, isn't it relevant to Carter's purposes that precisely the Persian Gulf emirates practice Islamic supremacy, have millions [!!!] of foreign workers who are often treated badly [consider the boy jockeys in Dubai], practice a form of supremacy or domination and exploitation over others, call it capitalist, feudal, Islamic, or whatever, etc?? Isn't it relevant that carter is funded by those whose practices could be compared to apartheid in South Africa?

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Trevor,

One can say that nationalists can be racists and vice versa. But, they are distinct words with different meanings. And, one can be a nationalist while not being a racist and a racist without being a nationalist. So, they are not the same thing and are not automatically bookends of the same phenomena.

One can also be a trans-nationalist (e.g. the Nazis and Fascists) while being a racist. One can be a multiculturalist, of the type prevalent today in Europe, and be a racist. In fact, that is rather common in Europe.

So, I think your point is rather trite. Yoking things together as integrally related that are equally related to other, seemingly opposite, political phenomena doe not seem a good starting point if the goal is understanding. Or, in a sentence, nationalism and racism are different things that like other political beliefs, can coincide.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/19/2006

Barrie,
Indeed, I haven't read the book but I have seen that Jimmy himself has disavowed the "apartheid" charge. I have also read some simple-minded excerpts from jiminy's weighty tome. I am also familiar with carter's record, from which the world is still suffering, such as his help for Khomeini to take over Iran. George Lenczowski discussed this at length in the American Spectator about 25 years ago.

Of course, Barrie, some people believe that separation between Jews and Arabs, that is, having Jews and Arabs living in separate states, is the way to peace. What else does the notion of the 2-state solution mean? But do you feel that Jews ought to be excluded from living in places like Hebron? This town in the so-called West Bank has been traditionally considered a Jewish holy city. In 1929 Arab pogromists massacred 68 Jews there, with apparent British acquiescence or connivance. Then, the British removed the surviving Jews from the town. So I don't put all the blame on the Arabs. Then in 1939, Britain issued the "palestine White Paper." This policy entailed forbidding Jews to buy land in much or most of mandated palestine west of the Jordan River. It also severely restricted Jewish immigration, preventing Jews from escaping the Nazi domain to the internationally designated Jewish National Home. That's why the League of Nations Permanent Mandates Commission found the White Paper in violation of the Mandate. If Jewish refugees had been able to come in, they might have settled in large numbers --before 1948-- in what was called the West Bank after Israel's war of independence. But the Arabs themselves rejected a Jewish presence in the Land unless the Jews were few and totally abject and totally subject to the Arabs, a situation that had prevailed for centuries. In other words, the Arabs wanted "apartheid" as you define it --mere separation-- or as something much like apartheid as it actually existed in South Africa, what others call dhimma. Indeed, the dhimma condition went beyond mere separation to include economic exploitation [special taxes for dhimmis], oppression, religious harassment, humiliation, etc. Be that as it may, Carter was using the word apartheid to smear Israel with the tar of the obnoxious practices legislated and enforced against Blacks in South Africa, and which were never Israeli law or practice. Just this morning I was in one of our Jerusalem shopping malls. Many Arabs were there too, shopping, sitting at the cafe tables, trying on clothes, etc. This is not South African apartheid. To be honest, many Jews are very angry at the Arabs for the acts of mass murder perpetrated by Arabs, encouraged by Arab govts, imams, muftis, intellectuals, TV broadcasters [on al-Jazeera, PA TV, etc]. But we do go the malls, anyway. Many of the Arabs don't look so different from us, although some do. If they don't wear their Muslim costumes, we don't easily know who's who. Carter is operating a rather simple but sophisticated smear against Israel. Perceptive people will understand this. Honest people will condemn Carter for his lie.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Trevor,

The scholarship on this topic suggests, so far as I know, that Arabs, by and large, stand in about the same position as most Europeans. We rightly speak of how little Europeans did to help their fellow humans.

The same, unless we are to give Arabs a pass - holding them to a lesser standard -, should be said about Arabs. And, in the case of those who really worked hard for the Nazi cause - in fact, sought out the Nazis and would not take "No" for an answer (e.g. the leader of the Palestinian Arabs during that period, a man who, according to Bernard Lewis, knew how many Jews were being killed in real time), a bit more than that goes. And, to note: the Mufti was the leader of a movement, not a lone actor.

So, when I hear people attempt to humanize butchers and extricate those who supported such butchers, I get angry. The Mufti knew what he was doing. His followers in what is now Israel surely knew as well. They are not guiltless; far from it.

Adam Holland -
12/19/2006

President Carter's latest opus follows the trend of sensationalism in the form of serious political thought. I believe that his intention was to "raise a ruckus", and at that, he was most succesful. Sadly, he did so at the cost of his reputation.

His scholarship, as any serious observer knows, is shoddy. I wonder WHO did the research for the book? I'd love to hear from the actual researcher how so many gross factual errors made it into the book. Has Carter made any attempt to correct the record? Has he apologized for the more obvious errors? Has he explained the Ross map incident?

Shoddy scholarship aside, the book reminds me most of a (Judith Regan, talk radio, Fox News) right wing hack attack job. Carter may wear the mask of the noble, aged leader, moved by the outrageous conduct of Israel to sully his hands in the marketplace of ideas. In fact, Carter uses his reputation as an advocate for political and human rights to make a killing selling a shrill, poorly thought through and poorly written diatribe worthy of a Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly.

The whole story is that the book is terrible and that he uses the word apartheid. In this case, you CAN judge the book by its cover.

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/19/2006

Mr. Eckstein and Mr. Baker,

Some Arabs collaborated with the Nazis. Some Arabs also hid and helped Jews. Amazingly, some Arabs did both! In fact, some of the unsung heroes of the Holocaust were the Sultan of Morocco and the Bey (I believe) of Tunisia... There's a new book on this out now that's quite convincing, called In the Land of the Just or something like that (can't remember offhand)... by a Jewish author, by the way, I believe.

Similarly, there were Arabs during WWI who actually corresponded and met with the British and French (w/Sykes and Picot for example) and in some cases offered to give up Syria to France in exchange for an independent Arabia (I'm not in my office, but once I am I can quote sources).

Folks, the main problem with the "Arab this Jew that" debate is that we forget we're dealing with human beings who, on both sides, can be fallible, nefarious, calculating and also just, good, and aiming just to survive and thrive. In history, as in the present, people are complicated and their actions fuzzy and sometimes contradictory. That's why I deplore the hate-speech that sometimes takes over this topic.

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

I'm sure you're right and the right of Jews to return, etc, is completely irrelevant to President Carter's book - but it is obviously not irrelevant to the majority of the people who have attacked the book on this site.

I'm also sure that you are right to say that President Carter's purpose is political, in that politics is essentially a process of conciliation, of re-conciling differences between conflicting parties with (often, very) different interests who are pursuing (often, very) different ends. To that extent, then, whatever its quality as an academic work, if I am to believe the reviews, his book should be welcomed even by those who disagree with its argument and oppose its conclusions.

To suggest that, "to understand his politics, it is worth considering where his organization gets its money. It is not from Israel's friends. That explains the stridency of his polemic and the book's title" is really unworthy of you and I sincerely hope you wrote it more for effect than as a statement of belief.

Effectively, and, I'm sure, unconciously, you seem to be adopting the gnostic stance that somewhere out there is a (perhaps vast) anti-Jewish conspiracy composed of, let's say, the Elders of Anti-Zion who've coughed up the cash so that Jimmy Carter can publish its Protocols and only you, with your special insight, and those of like mind can stop it from taking over..... where?.... Washington? London? Paris? Katmandhu? Palestine? The total known universe, perhaps?

Haven't we all been here before but the rest of us got out as soon as we could, sadly leaving a few behind who prefer to continue admiring the reflection in the mirror for a little while longer?

When push comes to shove, I suspect that President Carter will prove to be Israel's greatest friend, while Israel's friends will be seen to have always been its greatest enemies.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Peter,

I merely noted what average Israelis think. You have extrapolated that into any policy then goes. That was not my view.

The closest I have gotten to the view that it does not matter is to note that the West has had very little impact on the basic direction of Arab society toward religious revival, which means, in large measure, making Islam govern society.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

I go by N.

A. M. Eckstein -
12/19/2006

Mr. Getz, don't forget Palestinian collaboration with the NAZIS, too, as well as the British: the Mufti of Jerusalem al-Husseini spent a lot of the Second World WAr in Berlin, broadcasting for Hitler. Lots of photos of him shaking hands with Hitler.

Oh, wait, Omar--it's the Jews who are the racists! I forgot!

A. M. Eckstein -
12/19/2006

Let me be clear: Omar made it clear last week that the war was a CHOICE--a NOBLE choice of Arabs and Muslims, in comparison to numerous other peoples (including 900,000 Jews expelled from Muslim lands, vs. the 700,000 Palestinian refugees) who were willing to accept population-transfers as one of the terrible facts of international life, and move on.

The characterization of the war as "genocidal" is mine, not Omar's, and if people were confused by my phraseology, I apologize. The problem, of course, is that Omar's not honest enough to admit the nature of the war, which is made clear by the main strategy of suicide bombing against civilians (any Jew will do for death).

The Darfur genocide example, with al-Q calling for a jihad against any who interfere, is additional evidence of the violent and degenerated nature of current Arab/Muslim political culture, what Arab governments are capable of when allowed to go their own way by the civilized world community. Mr. Amitz is all too currect.

Darfur again undermines any serious Muslim concern about "civilian casualities"--both the acts of the Sudanese govt, and the acquiescence of other Muslim govts, and the lack of concern about this on "the Arab street". These folks don't care about civilian casualties--as long as THEY are inflicting them. The propaganda-sewer machine only begins running when some dhimmi dares to inflict casualites on THEM. Then the crocodile tears flow.

art eckstein -
12/19/2006

Sorry: what should I call you, other than Mr. Friedman?

A

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Peter,

The view of most Israelis is that there is, at present, no peace to be had, regardless of what Israel does.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Art,

I really am not Norman. Really.

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Barrie,

You might ask Mr. Green what he has in mind.

Focusing on the ancestral Jewish home likely occurred, as I understand the matter, because re-creating Israel was more likely to attract large numbers of Jews than creating a neo-Khazaria. So Israel became the focus of the movement. That may be what Mr. Green has in mind.

In any event, the right of Jews to return to the ancestral home was eventually secured from the League of Nations and then in the United Nations Charter (i.e. per the Palestine clause aka Article 80).

To me, this is all basically irrelevant to Mr. Carter's book. Carter, quite obviously, is being political, not historical. And, to understand his politics, it is worth considering where his organization gets its money. It is not from Israel's friends. That explains the stridency of his polemic and the book's title.

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/19/2006

Mr. Baker,

I may in fact agree with you more than I do the opposite side of this argument, but allow me to suggest that you not condemn Israel too much for collusion with British colonialism, since that charge can be leveled against many leading figures on the Palestinian side as well.

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/19/2006

Mr. Green,

Since many of the world's greatest scholars on nationalism have pointed to the great overlap between nationalism and racism, can you tell me how you can discern them as entirely seperate? Perhaps by giving a suitable (and unimpeachable) definition of both? This is an unfair task to set, as it's impossible. The fact is that, despite our predilicition for establishing firm categories in theory, these terms are both used widely and overlap quite seriously in reality, at least in the last two centuries or so. You show this in your own post, by conflating the Arab league (an Arab 'nation') with the Arab 'ethnicity'. You are correct, I believe, that the two overlap, which just proves my point that just as race and nation overlap, so to do nationalism and racism.

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

I can see what you're driving at, but how does it tie in with Elliot's statement that: "As for the Jews, the Jewish right to return to what was long Jewish land before the Arab conquest [7th cent] was recognized in the Jewish National Home principle"?

Unless, of course, he's not referring to Palestine at all - but, then, on re-reading his post, he obviously is referring to Palestine.

A flexible principle, perhaps? Maybe it's flexible enough to accomodate the Palestinians as well. Who knows?

Perhaps I'd better suggest to my wife that she gets me President Carter's book for Christmas in the hope that it will help allay my troubled mind. Or do you think Elliot might tell me and take the edge off my anticipation?

art eckstein -
12/19/2006

I understand, Norman. Right.

best,

Art

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

If what you say about the Jewish National Home is true, why did Herzl negotiate with HMG about siting the Jewish National Home in Cyprus? Lack of access to a good map?

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Barrie,

Consider that the position of Jews in Europe in the 19th and early 20th Century was that of beggars without rights. Beggars cannot be choosers, as the saying goes. Herzl, moreover, was, for his time, rather secular. To Herzl, the idea was to create a safe haven for Jews and that was more important than the location. So, he looked into a number of locations.

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

If what you say about the Jewish National Home is true, why did Herzl negotiate with HMG about siting the Jewish National Home in Cyprus? Lack of access to a good map?

art eckstein -
12/19/2006

Thank you Mr. Green, for your posts, which are filled with important information. Let me remphasize something you write:

"The PLO has a charter, that is, a statement of its principles, such as they are. Firstly, it denies --in Article One-- that there is a separate or distinct people or nation of "palestinians." Instead, the PLO Charter states [Art. I] that "The Palestinian Arab people is a part of the Arab nation [qawm]" and that "Palestine is a part of the great Arab fatherland" [watan]. They also have a principle that palestinian Arab immigration into "palestine" is legal but not Jewish immigration and that "palestinianness" is an inherited trait. Why not call this racism?"

Now, words don't mean everything, as has been pointed out on this blog with reference to the Israeli Constitution, but when you compare the OVERT racism of the PLO Charter with the liberal principles of the Israeli Constitution, there is an obvious and profound difference from the get-go.

And Mr. Barrett, in 1982 there was a rebellion at Homs in Syria against the Assad regime: in ONE week somewhere between 15,000 and 20,000 Syrian civilians were killed. That is FOUR to FIVE times the TOTAL number of Palestinian casualties (most of whom were adult male combatants) in the Second Intifada, which lasted three YEARS. No one questions the existence of the Assad regime, where the dynasty is still in power, ust as Arabs and Muslims don't care if 3,000 Iraqi civilians are killed each month (triple the death toll in Lebanon)--and these civilians are intentionally killed--as long as its not Jews who are doing it, but Muslims. So the issue isn't "civilian casualities" at all.

THAT is the violent context in which israel is living.

To repeat to you from Thomas Friedman:

"[c]riticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest."

(NY Times, Oct. 16, 2002)

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

Hi Elliot, long time no see. I guess you're here to add some class to the debate, albeit,sadly, at not inconsiderable length.

I could be wrong, but weaving in and out of the verbiage, my first guess is that you don't like the title of President Carter's book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid". Furthermore, my second guess is that, like me, you haven't read the book but you have read about it. You may even have read something written by someone who has actually read it. But it's the title that you have a problem with, isn't it?

Why not make a virtue of the expedient and think of it simply as "Palestine: Peace Not Separation"? Who amongst us could be so churlish as to disagree with this sentiment in the season of goodwill to all men - and women too, of course?

art eckstein -
12/19/2006

YA is correct on this: I guess we shouldn't get started on OJ, but Dershowitz is not responsible for OJ getting off, and indeed he played only a peripheral role in the OJ defense. The main culprits were the LAPD, who were incompetent, the inexperienced D.A.'s who put an easily proven liar and racist (Mark Furman) on the stand as a main witness, and a pro-OJ jury (including an ex-Black Panther) that refused to see which way the balance of the evidence nevertheless still pointed. The first incompetence of the D.A.'s was in fact not holding the trial in west L.A. where the crime happened, but downtown, guaranteeing a pro-OJ jury pool. And OJ had the money to bring in top-of-the-line lawyers, who beat the incompetent civil servants. YA is correct that we shouldn't be surprised: Attractive defendants (important for juries) who are rich enough to afford top-of-the-line lawyers usually get off in L.A.. as elsewhere: just look at the Robert Blake trial. He, too, got away with murdering his wife, and the evidence was stronger than in the OJ trial.

Dershowitz was once asked whether most of the people whom he defended were innocent. His startled response: "OF COURSE NOT. What kind of country would it be if the police were arresting INNOCENT people all the time?"

Professional defense lawyers have that philosophy, I suppose.

But I do find Dershowitz's participation in the OJ defense morally suspect. I couldn't live with having done it. But then, I'm not a professional defense lawyer.

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

Yehudi, you're not trying hard enough to answer my question - and it is a very simple one.

Perhaps if you were to try a little bit harder you will tantrum less.

Let me remind you: "The Baker-Hamilton reports proposes selling the Jews for Arab oil". Please will you reference the page for me?

Yehudi Amitz -
12/19/2006

I guess you would like Miranda warning removed, especially for black people and especially the part about the lawyer.
OJ got away with murder because of the incompetence of the LA police and also because of the corruption of the same police who made the jury behave the way they behaved. Also the LA district attorney office used two of the most incompetent prosecutors in this case. And, for a change, OJ got away with murder because of his money, but what is one black guy getting away with murder compared with the great numbers of whites who got away with lynching black people.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/19/2006

The realities on the ground, showing the real face of the modern backwardness of Islam, make you a bold face LIAR.
When was the last time you tried to pass through a Shia road block?

Yehudi Amitz -
12/19/2006

If you can't understand the difference between diplomatic and every day language, it's too late to fix your meager intellectual resources.
I understand that bigots, like you, would like the Jews in Israel swamped by Arabs in a resurrected "final solution".

N. Friedman -
12/19/2006

Art,

I was not disagreeing with you. I was noting another reason people left.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/19/2006

Peter C, to add to Peter K's list of places where Arabs drove Jews out in the war of Independence, 1947-49. Neveh Ya`aqov, Kibbuts Qalia, the Old City of Jerusalem, the Shim`on haTsadiq neighborhood of Jerusalem [ethnically cleansed in December 1947]. The latter was the first place in the country where people were driven out of their homes in that war and could not return after it. The Jews driven out of South Tel Aviv at the same time could return after the war. See my: http://www.think-israel.org/green.frenchjerusalem.html
This was first published in Midstream.
As to claims of racism made above, some persons deliberately confuse racism with nationalism. Anyway, what is the Arab League? What is an Arab state if not an ethnic state?

Elliott Aron Green -
12/19/2006

Just to add one detail to Friedman's point above, the PLO has a charter, that is, a statement of its principles, such as they are. Firstly, it denies --in Article One-- that there is a separate or distinct people or nation of "palestinians." Instead, the PLO Charter states [Art. I] that "The Palestinian Arab people is a part of the Arab nation [qawm]" and that "Palestine is a part of the great Arab fatherland" [watan]. They also have a principle that palestinian Arab immigration into "palestine" is legal but not Jewish immigration and that "palestinianness" is an inherited trait. Why not call this racism? As for the Jews, the Jewish right to return to what was long Jewish land before the Arab conquest [7th cent] was recognized in the Jewish National Home principle.
Someone above already pointed out that Jordanian law is similarly discriminatory towards Jews as is the PLO charter. More importantly, perhaps, in the 1930s-1940s, when Jews were fleeing from Nazi Germany and Poland, Rumania, etc., the palestinian Arabs opposed Jewish immigration into the mandated territory of Palestine, designated as the Jewish National Home by the San Remo Conf and the League of Nations. The British govt gladly agreed with this demand and prevented Jews from finding refuge in the Jewish National Home before, during, and after the Holocaust. The chief Palestinian Arab leader, haj Amin el-Husseini, mufti of Jerusalem, urged the Germans to kill more Jews and broadcast this message to the Arab world over Radio Berlin.

Elliott Aron Green -
12/19/2006

Barrie & Arnold, you know that the conflict between Jews & Arabs in the Middle East can be said to go back to the wars of Israel and Amaleq [an Arab tribe--on this see Richard Burton's book], as well as to Herod's wars on the Nabataeans and the participation of Arab auxiliary forces in the Roman siege of Jerusalem in the year 70 CE [see Tacitus, Histories, 5:1].

Now, when we look at the Walt-Mearsheimer "report" on alleged Jewish control of American Middle East policy, we look back to State Dept and CIA policy over the decades, even before Israel's independence. Before 15 May 1948, US diplomats encouraged Arab states to join a war against the about to be born state of Israel [see Prof Shlomo Slonim of Hebrew U]. Even "leftists" of that era, such as IFStone, frankly pointed to State Dept hostility to Israel. So I/we find Peter Clarke's charge that Washington administrations are "rubberstampers" of Israel to be particularly offensive and/or deceitful or ignorant. To go on, the Truman admin approved in 1951 an arrangement whereby Saudi Arabia received foreign aid through ARAMCO by means of the Foreign Tax Credit extended to oil purchases. This is a complicated matter for which I suggest John Blair's book, Control of Oil. Hence, Saudi Arabia has been the most highly subsidized [by the US] govt in the Middle East. In 1952, the US helped Nasser overthrow the royal & parliamentary govt [see Miles Copeland's Game of Nations; Andrew Tully's CIA: The Inside Story]. Now, would Walt-Mearsheimer --or Clarke for that matter-- claim that all this was done to help Israel or serve Israel's interests??? Since then, I would mention US votes in the Security Council condemning Israel for defensive, anti-terrorist actions, votes going back to the early 1960s, if not earlier; Eisenhower's intervention in the 1956 Suez Crisis, the Rogers Plan of 1969, Kissinger's stated desire to make Israel bleed in 1973, Carter's imitation "peacemaking" between Egypt and Israel, & Carter/Brzezinski's help for Khomeini to take over Iran. In view of this background, Clarke's "rubberstampers" claim is a fraud. Since Clarke may be British, I would throw in my view that Britain was a silent partner in the Holocaust, but that may be another topic. In view of the background of US & British policy toward Israel --that is, State Dept & CIA policy, many Jews feel that the baker-hamilton report implies an aim to sell out Israel, to sell out the Jews once again. I don't think that we're paranoid when it comes to baker-carter-hamilton-walt-mearsheimer.
Thus I agree Amitz.

Now, on Carter's book, the title was meant to be a smear on Israel, hoping that the title would make the desired impression on public opinion. However, Carter should have pointed out that over the centuries Jews and other non-Muslims in the Muslim states have been treated as second class subjects, paying special taxes [jizya & kharaj, etc], subject to all sorts of limitations, disabilities, and humiliations, not unlike those imposed on Blacks in South Africa --and even in jimmy Carter's native Georgia, where the name was jimcrow. In Saudi Arabia and some other Arab states, the hatred/contempt for dhimmis is still in full force, even in US ally Egypt where the Copts undergo regular humiliation and persecution, as well as discrimination in law enforcement and govt jobs, etc.

Barrie Lambert -
12/19/2006

Right, Yehudi. So much confusion to so little end. Now, perhaps, you will understand the need to accurately cite your sources. However, this page contains Recommendation 17 which refers, inter alia, to the Palestinians' right of return but, unfortunately, you still haven't complied with my request, which is, if I may be so bold as to remind you:

"You say, "The Baker-Hamilton reports proposes selling the Jews for Arab oil". Please will you reference the page for me?"

Yehudi Amitz -
12/18/2006

N. Friedman -
12/18/2006

James,

But, that is not what Israel did. If those Jews who created Israel had not defended themselves, they would mostly all have been killed, as the Arab leaders at the time asserted they aimed to accomplish. So, frankly, your assertion is false.

And, by the way, Germany did a lot worse than you accuse Israel of, namely, it attempted to conquer all of Europe, it attempted to rid Europe of those deemed undesirable and in order to accomplish that purpose, it industrialized the massacre of millions of people and, in the war, caused the deaths of tens of millions of people. That is rather worse than the war that occurred between Jews and Arabs in 1948 - in which maybe 15,000 Arabs all told died and 6,000 Jews died (i.e. 1% of all Israelis at the time including Arab Israelis) where the losing side - namely, the Arab side, which sought to massacre the Jewish side, often lost homes and had to live within ten miles of their homes where they were forced to live with relatives and among people of the same culture, language and history - in fact, the very same people.

I might add: at the end of WWII, 2 million Sudetens were expelled from Czechoslovakia and Poland. Do you despise Poland and Czechoslovakia for doing what you accuse Israel of doing - but which, unlike what occurred in Poland and Czechoslovakia - was part of war, not after the end of the war?

And, in the case of the Sudetens, Europeans pretty much all supported the ethnic cleansing of the Sudetens. That support continues to this day, as evidenced by a fairly recent resolution in the Council of European rejecting a right of return for Palestinian Arabs because, according to the debate surrounding the resolution, it would be seen as precedent supporting the claim by Sudetens to return to their homes. So, do you condemn Europeans?

Your assertions are rather ignorant.

James Allen -
12/18/2006

If Germany attempted to ethnically cleanse people from Germany who were born there because they are not German, then they would be as vile as Israel.

art eckstein -
12/18/2006

NF, I agree with what you've said about Jaffa; I've read some Ephraim Karsh. But I also think there was intentional ethnic cleansing (significant in scale, but not huge) elsewhere; that's what Bennie Morris (whom I know) showed. And as usual there was plenty of ethnic cleansing done by the Arabs, of Jews, during the war, and then came the huge expulsions of Jews from Arab lands in 1948-1956/1960. These latter two facts are ALWAYS forgotten, especially by Palestinians, by Arabs, and by Muslims, and including increasingly by our leftist friends in the West. I have of course pointed out these facts about 900,000 Jewish refugees vs. 700,000 Arabs (Palestinians) to Omar Ibrahim Baker--and I got no response, except the proud claim that what OTHER refugee groups may choose to accept their unfortunate fates, the Arabs are too noble to do so. (What a surprise).

And hence, as he indicated last week, the war of CHOICE against Israel. I repeat: Not necessity, and not as a "natural" response to the creation of refugees--but a cultural CHOICE. People should understand this.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Sure, the history of humanity is Nazis all the way down. Didn't think you that stupid, Peter C.

N. Friedman -
12/18/2006

Art,

You overlook one other reason why Muslims left Israel at its birth. The custom among Muslims, historically, has been to leave lands they lost in war. I might add that, even when they have not left of their own accord, historically they have been in conflict if they stayed and, in short order, were expelled. But, the norm - and the one actually consistent with classical Muslim law - is to leave and not live under infidel rule.

According to Ephraim Karsh, most of those of the Muslim population who left Jaffa, for example, did so at the behest of cleric who told them to leave and not live under non-Muslim law.

art eckstein -
12/18/2006

Mr. Barrett,

LOTS of countries use terrible weapons all the time. At least the Israelis didn't hide behind civilians, hoping they'd be killed so that they would achieve a propaganda victory. Meanwhile, Muslim terrorists kill 3,000 Muslim civilians in Iraq every month, and they do it intentionally, intentionally targetting civilians, and that number is three times the number of civilians the Israelis killed in Lebanon, and NO ONE in the Arab world bats an eye.

SO: Two useful definitions of anti-semitism are relevant here:

1. The EU's definiton of anti-semitism is the context of the State of Israel includes the following:
"Applying double standards by requiring of it behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

2. Similar is the following from Thomas Friedman:

"[c]riticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest" (NY Times, Oct. 16, 2002)

Rick Barrett -
12/18/2006

ACCUSING CRITICS of racism because they disapprove of Israel's hateful behavior is like calling the kettle black.
If you look up the word "apartheid" in any respected dictionary or encyclopedia, and insert "Jews" for "Whites", and "Palestinians" for "Blacks", ... the term is fits.
The only people who have ever attacked / accused Jimmy Carter of hatefulness are those infamous for the expressing this sentiment.
You behave like an "anti-body" that attacks all "foreign bodies" ... even when they carry an antidote to hatred.
The only thing Israel has ever done with an "Olive Branch" is use it to whip others into submission
The excessive use of force in Lebanon recently (using depleted uranium and cluster bombs) was condemned by the entire world & speaks volumes about Israel humanitarianism.
NO, other peoples, other countries do not react this way, and quit judging books by their covers
READ IT , YOU MIGHT LEARN THE MEANING OF COMPASSION

N. Friedman -
12/18/2006

James,

How is that different from France saying they want a French population or Germany saying they want a German population?

I think your version of racism is not racism.

As for Jordan, you can find the statute online. It is rather explicit that Jews cannot immigrate to Jordan.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

Peter, I admire it when you seek to play the gentleman and defend Yehudi from the fruits of his own ignorance, and his general disregard for anythink approximating the truth.

The trouble is there is no mention even of the right of return on page 58 of the report, let alone anything remotely suggesting that Yehudi has any grounds for stating that: "The Baker-Hamilton reports proposes selling the Jews for Arab oil". Nor can I find this idea of selling the Jews for Arab oil mooted anywhere else in the document. Maybe Baker produced two reports, one for Yehudi to enable him to be an even greater public embarrassment than usual with even less reason, and another for the rest of us so we will be confirmed in our view that Yehudi is an embarrassing dope who is wholly beyond shame.

However, for the rest of us the report refers to the Palestinian's right of return in Recommendation 17 on page 41. No selling Jews for oil, though. All very disappointing. I had hoped to pick up on some controversy I had overlooked on first reading.

art eckstein -
12/18/2006

Barrie, I believe in my posting I answered questions 1 and 3.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

Hi again Art. Thanks for responding but you don't even offer a tangential response to the questions I asked Peter Kovachev. Long on detail, but short on relevance.

Hi again, the two Peters. We've stripped it right down and we can all agree that "might is right" - and we have conjured up that Hobbesian world where (as I remember) "life is dull, nasty, brutish and short". Peter K has his down on "invented" Palestinians (an example of a gnostic code, methinks!) but is spared to speak up for other, presumably uninvented peoples with claims less or as contentious as those the Jews make for Palestine. Kinda contradictory in application, but it depends on your point of view as well as your personal psychology, I suppose.

Peter C offers a trully bleak vision, as did Hobbes. But for Hobbes, me, and I suspect Peter C, government, laws and a legal system with an aspiration towards justice which is prepared to subdue might and enforce right. Failing this, and this is my best guess, maybe mother nature is going to do it all for us and only requires us to hang around long enough to wait for the planet to heat up enough to solve all territorial claims for us forever.

God, I feel quite optimistic again! Must play that Armstrong Hot Five cd before the Horlicks kicks in tonight.

James Allen -
12/18/2006

To answer your question: Assuming you're right and that Jordan does indeed have a law saying that Jewish Jordanians cannot enter Jordan but others can, then yes, that's racist. It's the same exact type of racism practiced by Israel.

As for your argument that Israel wants to have a Jewish population yet is not racist, I don't know how to respond except that Orwell would love you. You're basically saying that racism is not racism. It would be like saying yes, the US did not allow blacks to vote because we're trying to make it a white country but that's not racist. Your argument, in summary, is: it walks like a duck and talks like a duck but it's not really a duck. I say, it's a duck.

art eckstein -
12/18/2006

Ridiculous, as usual, from Mr. Clarke.

Jews weren't shooting 700 rockets into the Reichstag, you jerk, as Hamas has done into Israel, nor were they blowing up hundreds of civilians. You just don't know what you're talking about, as usual, Mr. Clarke.

Palestinians, according to Omar, CHOSE and CHOOSE this war, and this is in conscious contradistinction in HIS mind to numerous other groups who have suffered similar or worse trauma (including the 900,000 Jews expelled from Muslim lands), but who have chosen to move on from the trauma. He sees Palestinias as more honorable than other groups because of the choice they have made. Other observers may choose a different adjective but in any case it would be best to problematize the Palestinian reaction, given that it is different from other groups. Given that it is different from other groups, including groups that have suffered worse trauma, it is analytically dubious to categorize it as "natural."

AND the Palestinians have chosen as well their METHOD of war: the suicide bomber as their chosen weapon, with the message of genocide which each explosion carries.

THESE are their choices: their choice of war, their choice of weapon.

Given those choices, yes--they have no right to complain when, striking savagely at the Israelis, the Israelis respond. Of course, they DO complain--in part because it is theologically outrageous to Muslims that dhimmis should be allowed to strike back when they are struck.

Again, THAT is attitude that ought to be problemitized.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

I know Arnold, but rather than treat their threads as contaminated and ignore their little machine offerings designed to induce anti-semitism involuntarily in anyone with an IQ greater than 2 as so many site contributors do, I sometimes feel very devilish and I like to tempt each of them a little further towards the crossroads where one of the or two of the roads may lead to an aspiration to historical truth, but that's not usually the one they choose.

Still at least I give some of them something to thing about in a different way. And who knows? The need to question one's "truths" may yet kick in and be fruitful. One day Yehudi may surprise us. Or not. As the case may be.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

He already refered you to page 58.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Gush Katif, Morag, Kfar Darom, and two more I can't recall. So much for my Christmas bonus. The only silver lining I can think of that came out of their ill-thought-of expulsion is that it is doubtful any Israeli government will be able to survive even the opening moves of another large-scale expulsion, such as Olmert has been hinting at to Condoleeza for brownie-points.

If you're looking for a hard and fast definition on what constitutes right of residency or migration, there isn't any. No supra-national body has the competence or right to come up with a sweeping definition. The best they have done is to freeze things in place, and hope that no one will upset the apple-cart on their watch. The worst thing they have done is to yet again single out the Jews and their nation-state for "special treatment."

Your "might is right" is, whether you like t or not, what we have always had and regardless of pretenses, always will have. Competent, technologically advanced and better organized populations have always absorbed or displaced weaker ones.

If you think there is any real international law and order out there, ask yourself why real ethnic groups, such as Kurds, Circasians, Tibetans and many others are not even allowed to talk of independence, while an invented "people," the "Palestinians" soak-up all the world's attention and the biggest share of foreign aid ever. Hint: None of them can afford the billions in bribes or can threaten the world's energy supply.

As for the right of Jews to Israel, they EARNED it by bying and developing huge tracts of land from the Ottoman Turks and from absentee Arab Syrian landlords, by creating arable land from swamp and semi-desert with their own backs, and by fighting to protect their crops and communities from marauding Arab bands. Unlike their neighbours, whose main contribution to the world today seems to be oil (which they can't even extract themselves) without help), carpets, imams and terrorists, Israel has moved on to become one of the most agriculturally and technologically productive nation in the world. You may think it unfair, but yes, right of residence and nationhood have to be fought for and earned. As for your Celtic example, sure, the Clearances were nasty and if you can earn back your ancestral lands and make something better of them, all the power to you.

Btw, I wasn't teasing with the answers; I screwed up the numbering.

E. Simon -
12/18/2006

Once Iran gives them the same arms they tried importing into Gaza, after the Palestinians take Israel over by demographic fiat, as they intend to, I imagine it won't be that difficult - although hegemony through the intimidation and realization of massacres is probably more important to them than is actual genocide. Given the determination with which they use suicide-bomb belts, it's certainly not a stretch to see how much further it could go with Iranian heavy arms.

As for videotapes about massacring Jews once they return, they're not necessary. MEMRI already has scores of such drivel as it is being expounded from the mosques of the Palestinian territories on a weekly basis - exhorting believers to follow Qur'anic injunctions to "kill them wherever they find them," regardless of whether such pious individuals actually reside in Israel or managed a one-way bus ticket for a supposed day trip turned a bit fleshier than the authorities expected.

Arnold Shcherban -
12/18/2006

Gentlemen,

The only way to resolve this argument,
is to compare Israeli official
laws, actions within its own and occupied territories, then comparing them with the corresponding definitons accepted by the UN and the wide international majority. I don't know what will come out, but it seems to me that's the right methodology to follow.

Arnold Shcherban -
12/18/2006

Barrie, if I may...

Yehudi, and a couple of more participants of the discussions on any issue involving Jews don't do it
to jointly look for the truth or even fair analysis of the facts. They are
here to slander and label everyone who even tangentially purports to criticise Israeli governments for anything. Therefore he never has any proofs, he just makes accusations.

art eckstein -
12/18/2006

Mr. Lambert,

The Israeli War of Independence, in which the new state was attacked by several Arab states with more men and better weapons and with the intention of committing genocide, led to some 700,000 Palestinians being displaced. Some of this was done intentionally by the Jewish forces, some was a natural refugee-response to the war; some were encouraged to leave by Arab govts themselves, one assumes in order to create "free fire zones".

During the war, the Arabs themselves engaged in "ethnic cleansing" of Jews in such places as east Jerusalem. And in the years thereafter, 1948-1956, some 900,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim lands, their property confiscated, etc. They settled in Israel with nothing.

This "exchange of populations" was typical of the chaos of the late stages of World War II and the immediate postwar world, the period of decolonization: 2,000,000 Germans were expelled or fled from Poland; millions of Hindus were expelled from what became Pakistan, millions of Muslims were expelled from what became India. The "Nakba" of the Palestinians is not unique; it is not as large as the "Nakba" suffered by the Jews at Muslim hands in 1948-1960; it is not nearly as large as other post-War and decolonialization refugee problems.

As Omar Ibrahim Baker has made clear, the response of the Palestinians (and the Arabs) to all this-- to wage a decades-long genocidal war against Israel--is a CHOICE. It is a proud choice: other populations may adjust to larger catastrophes, says Omar, but the Arabs refuse. This response of decades-long war is thus not a "natural" or unproblematic response to a huge refugee problem--you don't see Germans blowing themselves up in nightclubs in Danzig, their target being any Pole around (because any will do), or Iraqi Jews blowing themselves up in pizzerias Baghdad, the target being any Iraqi (because any will do). Only Palestinians do this, and it is their CHOICE.

Instead of accepting "the right of return" at face value as some sort of natural right, I therefore suggest we "problematize" the Palestinian choice instead of accepting it as a natural response. Other displaced populations have not acted this way, and that includes the 900,000 Jews expelled by Arab lands after the creation of Israel.

And I would add: as long as it IS a choice, as Omar Baker has admitted, then the Palestinians have no right to complain that when they kill Jews, they are struck back.

Arnold Shcherban -
12/18/2006

<The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid.>

The author seems to confuse a proof that in social and political matters
can only be obtained through the analysis of FACTS with the content written on paper. I don't tend to argue with the main point of the article, but methodologically it is wrong right there.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

Hey, Yehudi, it's not really be a difficult question. I'm not asking about the Palestinians' right to return or anything controversial like that. I just want you to reference the page which enables you to assert: "The Baker-Hamilton reports proposes selling the Jews for Arab oil". Please.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

I inadvertently made my comments which were intended for the "propaganda vs debate" thread on this one. However, this may well prove to be most apt.

I think we can agree on your partial response to my first question. But, in this context, which communities have been systematically removed? You will earn a Christmas bonus point if you can say how many, and when.

When you say "Jews have always lived in what they call the Land of Israel", I'm willing to bet that you don't mean a Land of the Spirit, and that you assume a land with a defined geography. If the latter, does this require a bare physical presence of, say, 2,3, 20, n, to justify "a historical right to be in"? Does it require predominantly Jewish villages and towns, and over what period? Or does it mean that the Land of Israel itself has had a predominantly Jewish demographic, and over what period? Does a Jewish physical presence, continuous or intermittent, justify the imposition of, say, a Jewish State on the lands occupied by Palestinians and their consequent ethnic cleansing? Oh, and what actually constitutes the Land of Israel and what does this imply for non-Jews which currently occupy it?

Your reply to my third question concerning simply asserts settlers' rights based on numbers and competence - might is right - and nothing about the nature of any historical right. What happens when numbers and "competence" begin to favour, say, the descendents of ethnically cleansed Palestinians? Oh, and as a Celt, I'm none too impressed with the results of both the Saxon and the Norman invasions - as it happens - so your fine words, in this instance, don't butter no parsnips.

I see you are teasing me with your response to my fourth question, and you have chosen not to answer my fifth.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/18/2006

Yehudi Amitz -
12/18/2006

The president of U.S. sent about two years ago a letter to the Israeli PM where one of the points was that USA believe that the Palestinian request for the "right of return" is not reasonable. Now the report tries to nullify this diplomatic letter.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

Hi Yehudi

I didn't ask about the right of return. I asked you to reference the page (or pages) which enables you to assert: "The Baker-Hamilton reports proposes selling the Jews for Arab oil".

art eckstein -
12/18/2006

The Israeli War of Independence, in which the new state was attacked by several Arab states with better weapons with the intention of committing genocide, led to some 700,000 Palestinians being displaced. Some of this was done intentionally by the Jewish forces, some was a natural refugee-response to the war; some were encouraged to leave by Arab govts themselves, one assumes in order to create "free fire zones".

During the war, the Arabs engaged in "ethnic cleansing" of Jews in such places as Hebron and east Jerusalem. And in the years thereafter, 1948-1956, some 900,000 Jews were expelled from Muslim lands, their property confiscated, etc. They settled in Israel with nothing.

This "exchange of population" is typical of the chaos of the late stages of World War II and the immediate postwar world, the period of decolonization: 2,000,000 Germans were expelled or fled from Poland; millions of Hindus were expelled from what became Pakistan, millions of Muslims were expelled from what became India. The "Nakba" of the Palestinians is not unique; it is not as large as the "Nakba" suffered by the Jews at Muslim hands in 1948-1960; it is not nearly as large as other post-War and decolonialization refugee problems.

As Omar Baker has made clear, the response of the Palestinians (and the Arabs) to wage a genocidal war against Israel as a result of all this is a CHOICE. It is a proud choice: other populations may adjust to larger catastrophes, but the Arabs refuse. The response of decades long war is not a "natural" response to huge refugee problems, then--you don't see ethnic Germans blowing themselves up in Danzig, their target being any Pole around, or Iraqi Jews blowing themselves up in Baghdad, the target being any Iraqi. Only Palestinians do this, and it is their CHOICE.

Instead of accepting "the right of return" as some sort of natural right, I therefore suggest we "problematize" the Palestinian choice instead of accepting it as a natural response. Other displaced populations have not acted this way, and that includes the 900,000 Jews expelled by Arab lands after the creation of Israel.

And I would add: as long as it IS a choice, as Omar Baker has admitted, then the Palestinians have no right to complain that when they kill Jews, they are struck back.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/18/2006

The Arabs who left Israel were replaced by Jews from Arab countries, most of them being thrown out from there.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

2) In spite of being forcibly removed or massacred by various powers, Jews have always lived in what they call the Land of Israel.

3) In a similar way in which I accept the arrival of immigrants to my country, the right of non-Native Americans and Canadians to reside on this continent, or the right of the descendands of Saxons and Normans to stay in Britain. In spite of attempts by international bodies to clarify or limit such rights, in human history migration and settlement by more numerous or more competent peoples has always been the norm.

3) See #2. As for evidence, established historical facts supported by archeology and documents are out there for your perusal.

4) The evidence is in your acceptance of the assumption that Israelis, or more precisely Jews, do not, for some reason, "belong" in formerly-occupied (by Jordan and Egypt for a mere 9-year stretch) Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

Robert Smith -
12/18/2006

"The reason Palestinian Arabs do not have a law of return is that they would massacre the local population. Hence, that is called common sense."

Really? They would massacre all the other Palestinians? Or maybe you meant that they would massacre all of the Jews? I assume then, you have an individual videotaped declaration by all Palestinians everywhere (including all those deadly women and children) that they intend to murder Jews when they return?

And just HOW exactly would they massacre the Jews? The Jews have heavy weapons, tanks, aircraft, etc. and the Palestinians have.... their bare hands. Heavily armend Arab armies were unable to massacre the Jews, but somehow unarmed refugees are going to magically accomplish the task. Right.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Touche! Are we all happy now?

Yehudi Amitz -
12/18/2006

The "right of return" is at page 58.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

Aah, Peter: five questions on your latest posting which I hope you will be good enough to answer (succinctly and without rhetoric, I trust).

What is your understanding of the term "ethnic cleansing" in this context?

What do you mean by "a historical right to be in"?

How do you justify this particular expression of this "right", and to what extent might it intrude on, or conflict with, the rights of others?

What do you mean by the statement "...their historical homeland which they had never abandoned", and what evidence are you relying on?

What evidence do you have for your statement that Peter K. Clarke is "such a devout admirer of "Juden-rein" Muslim lands"?

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

At last you say something we both agree to be true. I really like your deft heaviness of touch when you use the term "crudness". Truly a bon mot to feel truly bon about. Congratulations!

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

Aah, Peter: five questions on your latest posting which I hope you will be good enough to answer (succinctly and without rhetoric, I trust).

What is your understanding of the term "ethnic cleansing" in this context?

What do you mean by "a historical right to be in"?

How do you justify this particular expression of this "right", and to what extent might it intrude on, or conflict with, the rights of others?

What do you mean by the statement "...their historical homeland which they had never abandoned", and what evidence are you relying on?

What evidence do you have for your statement that Peter K. Clarke is "such a devout admirer of "Juden-rein" Muslim lands"?

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

Hi Yehudi

You say, "The Baker-Hamilton reports proposes selling the Jews for Arab oil". Please will you reference the page for me?

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Why, thank you ever so much, Barrie. But really, now, you and I both know that old Oscar would have blanched at the crudness of my wit.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

Hi Yehudi

You say, "The Baker-Hamilton reports proposes selling the Jews for Arab oil". Please will you reference the page for me?

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

What an astonishing rapier-like wit you have, Peter. Oscar Wilde would learn much if only he were still around to read your HNN posts.

Yehudi Amitz -
12/18/2006

The participation to this scheme comes from all the sides of the political spectrum. The Baker-Hamilton reports proposes selling the Jews for Arab oil, even the right of return is included in the report. The M&W new "protocols of the elders of Zion" blames the Jewish lobby for trying to keep alive the Israeli Jews. I wonder where were people like Carter when the West bank and Gaza have been administrated by Jordan and Egypt? No one really cares about Palestinians, the Only important thing is blaming the Jews.
Where is the book about apartheid in Darfur?
USA sold the Jews in the past and now there is pressure to do it again. I hope it's not going to happen again!

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

No, Peter C. Israel's rulers are not always right. The last two idiots ethnicly-cleansed two or more generations of their own people from communities they had a historical right to be in, and the one in office now muses about more of the same...assuming he won't be turfed out on his corrupt butt within the next few months. If you were not such a devout admirer of "Juden-rein" Muslim lands, you might have agreed that Jews have as much right to live in their historical homeland which they had never abandoned.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

I don't know why you're "always wrong, blatantly biased, using inflammatory, inaccurate, and misleading words" Peter C. Must be the effects of what passes for education nowadays.

If a controlled press, an autocracy with limited and selective voting rights and persecution of minorities doesn't resemble fascism, pray do tell what fancy "operational definition" you have in mind, then.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Perhaps. After a good up-chuck, a double dose of gravol and a long shower.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Mr. Allen, you can't even accurately paraphrase or honestly convey what I wrote, so I'd be surprised if you got a reply. Apart from the fact that most vociferous critics of Israel are, indeed, indistinguishable from the "flamboyant" or self-declared antisemites, I was speaking specifically of Carter. Let his record of classical Jew-baiting accusations, his blatant bias and the money trail speak for themselves.

As for the UAE, an autocratic country with a tightly controlled media and where homosexuality is punishable by death, is certainly fascistic by most definitions of the term.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

I should imagine he would take it very well, Peter.

art eckstein -
12/18/2006

Two useful definitions of anti-semitism are relevant here:

1. The EU's definiton of anti-semitism is the context of the State of Israel includes the following:
"Applying double standards by requiring of it behavior not expected or demanded of any other democratic nation."

2. Similar is the following from Thomas Friedman, who perhaps makes the point better than I did in my posting just above:

"[c]riticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction - out of proportion to any other party in the Middle East - is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest" (NY Times, Oct. 16, 2002)

N. Friedman -
12/18/2006

James,

Every country on Earth has a similar mechanism in the law, namely, some are allowed in and some are not. For example, in Jordan, anyone of Jordanian descent may return to Jordan except, according to Jordanian law, a Jew. Is that racist?

In the case of Germany, anyone of German ancestry may return to Germany. That excludes Germans of Turkish ancestry. Is the law racist? In the case of France, it is based on French blood. Is that racist?

And, what about the US, which has quotas by nationality? Is that racist? Or, is it common sense?

I think your position is nonsense. The reason Palestinian Arabs do not have a law of return is that they would massacre the local population. Hence, that is called common sense.

Now, the reason that any Jew may move to Israel is that Israel wants to increase its Jewish population. That is as good a reason as any. And, it certainly is not racist.

art eckstein -
12/18/2006

When the leading professional historian at the Carter Center resigns on moral grounds as a result of this book, attacks Carter and calls the book plagiarized as well as hideously one-sided (i.e., blaming only "the Jews" and "Jewish money" for the Palestian-Israel problem while OMITTING Palestinian acts of violence from the discussion), then you know something is very seriously amiss with Carter.

An author who applies radically different standards of judgment to the conduct of two national groups, castigating one while sparing the other , is guilty of applying a double standard. When one of those groups is the Israelis, who are held to different standards of behavior than ANY other national group, and are savagely criticized while others are not who do far worse things--well, it is legitimate to see the author who writes these things as anti-semitic.

James Allen -
12/18/2006

Since you are against the use of words that are "so inflammatory, inaccurate, and misleading as to be immoral," I will be anxiously awaiting your reply to Peter Kovachev's reply to your post calling critics of Israel "antisemites" and referring to the UAE as "fascistic." You must have alot to say to someone who bandies about such terms as these which have no basis in reality and which serve no purpose but to delegitimize and intimidate critics of Israel.

N. Friedman -
12/18/2006

Mr. Allen,

Are you prepared to call the French and German Laws of Return racist? And, what about the Jordanian one?

My suggestion. What you are saying is, strictly speaking, nonsense. Israel includes a preference for Jews who, in Europe and elsewhere, are discriminated against. What is the excuse for the French or the German law of return?

art eckstein -
12/18/2006

Saudi Arabia does not let in Jews at all; but Muslims may visit Israel.

Saudi Arabia does not allow either Christian churches or Jewish synagogues; Israel allows both Christian churches and Muslim mosques.

The Israelis have a right to keep out of their country those who have sworn to destroy it. Any country has that right,

Even Carter's stupid book does not claim that Israeli is a racist country, and that he was using "apartheid" not in the South African sense (which, one must say, seens real nonsense).

Those who attack the Israelis for defending themselves the way ANY other country would, against those who are sworn to destroy it, are themselves the racists. They are racists because they apply a standard to Jews that they do not in fact find necessary apply to any other national group.

James Allen -
12/18/2006

I will give you that Jewish Nationalism by itself does not HAVE to be racist, although there is a very thin line between any type of nationalist sentiment and racism.
However, the current manifestation of Jewish nationalism, Zionism, certainly is racist, for it enacts laws which discriminate against one group in favor of the other. This is called racism. I am referring to the so-called "Law of Return," which allows Jews to enter Palestine and settle there, whereas Palestinians cannot.

James Allen -
12/18/2006

Israel doesn't merely "employ preferences" as to who is allowed in. They allow anyone who is Jewish and disallow natives of the land who are not. This, no matter how you try to sweeten it, is called racism.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Ms. Paul, your cackling from the sides of your face may indicate deeper medical issues. Get it looked after.

Consider that given your hilarious belief in "Semites," your evaluation of what racism is may not be enterily sound. How a state which has given more rights to a hostile Arab population within its borders than any Arab state has, and one rescues thousands of "Black" Ethiopian Jews and admits more African refugees than all of the Arab world combined (if you don't count their continuing importation of Black slaves) can be deemed "racist" is a mystery that will remain within the confusing labyrinth of your mind.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Prof. Troy,

Thanks for the steak. A book review by you of Carter's latest inanity would certainly be welcome...at least by some of us here.

In reading about Carter's attempts to defend his book in various interviews, which can be summarized as blaming Jews and Jewish money and organizations, I'm wondering when someone in academia will break through the invisible barrier of gentility and call him what he is: an antisemite and a bumbling tool of certified antisemites, which include members of the Bin Laden family, the Saudi Fund for Development and various Islamis potentates and "personal friends" with deep pockets, such as Sheikh Zayed Bin Sultan al-Nahyan and Sultan Qaboos bin Said. That's to name a few. And, as Jacob Laskin pointed out, Carter's "apartheid" analogy should be put beside his hailing of the fascistic United Arab Emirates as a "almost completely open society."

Being a materialist at heart, I would argue that Carter's connections, friends and the money trail leading to his pet projects is the most likely reason for the insipid title to his insipid book.

Peter Kovachev -
12/18/2006

Never mind that. What would Martin Buber make of seeing you, of all people, make use of his name?

N. Friedman -
12/18/2006

Mr. Allen,

Israel is a lot of things but it is, by world standards, not racist. And, as I noted, countries throughout the world employ preferences regarding which people to let in.

What you would do is have Israel let people in who mean to massacre Jews. I am sorry, it is you who are a racist if you think that a country must allow anyone in, including people who vow to murder the group that is already living in the country.

N. Friedman -
12/18/2006

Trevor,

Nationalism could - but does not necessarily - lead to racism. I might note: transnationalism, as exists in Europe, can also lead to racism. In fact, that is a bigger problem in Europe than in Israel. And, so can multiculturalism, as exists in Europe. Again, such has led to substantial racism.

N. Friedman -
12/18/2006

Mr. Allen,

Zionism is the Jewish liberation movement which, in turn, is Jewish nationalism. It is not a racist ideology any more than British nationalism. This is not to say there are no racist Jewish nationalists but, instead, that Jewish nationalism is no more racist than any other nationalism.

Barrie Lambert -
12/18/2006

What would Martin Buber make of Gil Troy's piece and the grubby arguments used by apologists for Zionism in the subsequent debate? "I told you so?"

Lorraine Paul -
12/18/2006

When I first heard that the oppressive and racist state of South Africa had got the idea for their Apartheid policy from Israel, I laughed! Two to three years later, I am laughing on the other side of my face. Sadly, I now believe this to be true.

Gil Troy -
12/18/2006

Critics seems to be chiding me for serving steak because they expected to eat but wanted pasta not meat. Not all discussions of a book are a book review. I'd be happy to review the book as well. My intention here - in the short form of an op-ed -- was to focus on the question of Jimmy Carter's title - I'm well aware of his justification and rationale for it, as well as the wriggle room he tried to create in the text of the book between his argument and his title. I'm not buying it, I'm saying that the use of that word in this context is so inflammatory, inaccurate, and misleading as to be immoral. Carter is giving the stamp of legitimacy to the use of "apartheid" when discussing Israel, when it has already been used repeatedly to try to brand Zionism as racism and delegitimize Israel.
Carter's incendiary title also raises the broader question to me about historical analogizing -- when is it useful, when is it harmful; do we avoid analogies at any cost, or do we use them but with the kind of sensitivity to the political, historical and moral context that I accuse Carter of lacking in this discussion -- by the use of that word in his title...

Charles Tandy, Ph.D. -
12/18/2006

Professor Troy seems to be making his comments without first informing himself of what Carter himself said about interpreting his desire to have a "provocative" (Carter's word) book title -- per Carter on the Larry King Live show.

James Allen -
12/18/2006

You are trying to confuse the issue by presenting "Jewish Nationalism" as something pure and innocent, whereas in reality what you call "Jewish Nationalism" is Zionism, an ideology which requires discrmination against one group in favor of another. So of course no Arab intellectual will concede legitimacy to the philosophy that Palestine should be given to a colonizing regime and that its natives should be excluded, exported, transfered, or reduced to second class. Why should they?

It is like saying that there is no solution to race problems in the US because those who support civil rights for blacks refuse to concede any legitimacy to white supremacy.

James Allen -
12/18/2006

You have not made much of a case at all that my argument is nonsense.
Israel discriminates against the natives of the land on the basis of their race, not new immigrants. Those who were born in Palestine cannot go back, and the ones who are there live in brutal oppressive conditions, whereas Jewish immigrants can come and go as they please. That is not the same as a country's immigration policy, which has to do with new people coming to the country.

Second, as for Israel being a safe place for Jews, I don't think I have to explain how ridiculous that is. Due to their oppressive policies, it is probably the least safe place there is to be a Jew. And the more Israel uses violence and brutality to supress the Palestinian struggle, the less safe it becomes.

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/18/2006

You are really arguing a point with me that has nothing to do with my objection to the article, which have to do with the author's misinterpretation of what apartheid was in South African history... To be truthful, I find little to identify with in any nationalism, because it can so easily lead to racism, to apartheid, to genocide. It seems to me that Afrikaner nationalism was a leading cause of apartheid. This may lead some to the question, not the answer, of the role of Israeli nationalism in the current impasse. It is a question Troy is not able to address, because he dismisses apartheid as racism absent nationalism. It is a question I cannot fully address, because I am not an expert on Israeli-Palestinian issues. All I can say is that the absence of a balanced and nuanced assessment of apartheid undermines Troy's argument.

N. Friedman -
12/17/2006

Mr. Whitesell,

Given the circumstances of rejection - from before the country began to the present - by its Arab citizens, the Israelis do not do all that bad. I would think we should compare them with the truly dismal record of the French in France regarding Muslims in France - and, incidentally, where are those Muslim legislators and high court judges in France? -, the record of Germans in Germany regarding Muslims in Germany - and the same question -.

The bottom line is that Europeans, without initial complete rejectionism by their Muslim populations, have no equality for them and precious little representation. The Israelis, imperfect as they are, have more equality and far better representation for their Arab citizens than do any European country.

N. Friedman -
12/17/2006

Trevor,

I have not read his book either. On the other hand, by Carter's own statements, the books is polemic and the title is intentionally provocative and not his view. In factd, according to the critics, Carter makes a point of stating at the end of the book that Israel is not an apartheid state. That, of itself, creates suspicions about Carter's intentions, not to mention fairness.

Further, there is the point about where the Carter Center get money and what is asked, if anything, of Carter for the generous funding his center receives. A very large amount of the money not mysteriously comes from those who take the Arab side - and, in fact, people from the Middle East. Of course, that could be the result of his view rather than the cause of his view. I, however, am skeptical about his sincerity since, in reality, he supports the two state solution, something the Palestinian Arab leadership publicly and, so far as I know, privately opposes.

One does not have to go too much further to understand the difficulty that even a peace loving Israeli government might face - and not all Israeli governments have been of that point of view - when, for example, the founding charter of the HAMAS indicates its adoration of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, states that Jews are behind all wars since the French Revolution, states that all negotiations and conferences are worthless, preferring instead Jihad to solve all problems, and indicates that the Israel's elimination is required by Islam itself.

In an interesting article by Judea Pearl - the father of the beheaded reporter Daniel Pearl -, he indicates that he attended a meeting in the Arab region among Arab liberals. In the course of the meeting, he spoke with many leading Arab liberals, among other Arabs. Not one took the view that Jewish nationalism was legitimate. In fact, they all said it was not legitimate. That is very scary since - if Pearl is correct (and my reading and study suggests he is spot on) - there really is no segment of Arab opinion willing to concede any legitimacy to Jewish nationalism.

To me, that means there really is no settlement to the dispute. I might add that such is consistent with polling data which indicates, as I read it, that even those Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs willing to settle the dispute, are only interested in an interim arrangement.

J. Brett Whitesell -
12/17/2006

"The fact that Israel’s Declaration of Independence – and founding document – promises to “uphold the full social and political equality of all its citizens, without distinction of race, creed or sex,” proves that Israel rejects racism and by definition cannot be accused of Apartheid."
1.) Read both Peter Clarke's comments, then Trevor Russel Getz, however, he uses some big words. You should be able to find someone to help though.
2.) If you believe in your statement above I have a ski resort in Kansas about to go on the market. Want in early?

J. Brett Whitesell

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/17/2006

Mr. Friedman,

Please call me Trevor... although I may occasionally try to legitimize my positions on African history by use of my title, I do not mean to push it home or to stand on it alone.

You are, it seems to me, absolutely spot on as to the point of the article, and I do not consider myself enough of an expert of the Palestinian-Israeli situation to comment on it.

However, I stand by my point that to assess Carter's use of the term 'apartheid', one has to effectively and authoritatively investigate that term, and in my opinion Dr. Clarke has failed to do so, and that this renders some of his 'contrasts' suspect. Having not read the book (yet), I cannot tell if President carter has done so as well.

N. Friedman -
12/17/2006

James,

Your argument is, strictly speaking, nonsense.

Every country in the world favors one group over the other in immigration. France and Germany do that. The US does that.

Jews are favored because Jews have been the subject of discrimination all across the globe. That, after all, is a major reason for Israel's existence, namely, as a safe haven for Jews.

N. Friedman -
12/17/2006

Professor Getz,

I think the point is that the Israel's attitude toward local Arabs is defined by the war by Arabs - and not just local Arabs - against Israel. It is not something centuries in the making and its prime characteristic is the unwillingness of Arabs (e.g. our very own Omar) to even imagine that Jewish nationalism could be legitimate.

Jews in the Middle East, are very much akin to Maronites and Copt. Which is to say, absent Israel, Jews would be treated like dirt. And, the treatment of Arab citizens of Israel, while not akin to Episcopalian Americans in the US, is rather good - rather better than treatment of Muslims in most European countries -, most especially given the fact that such Arabs have, in large numbers, cast their lots with Palestinian Arabs in the captured territories.

Which is to say, the use of monikers like "apartheid" refers to an entirely different reality.

Trevor Russell Getz -
12/17/2006

Mr. Clark, as usual, makes some very relevant points. Allow me, hopefully, to contribute some as well. Note that I am not an expert on Palestine and Israel, and do not claim to be.

As a South African and as an assistant professor of African history, however, I feel that I must point out that Dr. Troy has completely reduced and misunderstood what apartheid was in the South African experience, and that his omissions are insome cases misleading.

To suggest, for example, that "The Afrikaners’ discriminatory apartness began with their racist revulsion for blacks, reflected in early laws in 1949 and 1950 prohibiting marriages and sexual relations between whites and non-whites" is to make at least two mistakes. First, it ignores several centuries of history that helped to create apartheid, and second it preferences racism over nationalism. It's not clear, I think whether Afrikaner 'nationalism' or 'racism' predominated, especially in the early years of formal apartheid. I think it is possible to suggest that apartheid was much a result of an emergent nationalism (aimed at Black, Coloured, Asian, and additionally English-speaking white South Africans). This is of significance, for while Israelis and indeed many Jews may reject depictions of themselves as a race (I know I do), many Israelis are proudly nationalist.

Moreover, it is of concern to me that Dr. Troy seems to read documents as if they were facts. Israel's constitution may say that the state promises to uphold full equality, that does not mean that the state in fact does (or does not) in reality (to which I cannot answer). Consider, in parallel, the many late apartheid-era documents from South Africa's government that swore that 'seperate development' was intended to promote the rights of all citizens... seperately, of course. This is why a good historian doesn't just quote documents, but rather investigates them.

Of course, I'm also intrigued by Dr. Troy's use of language - for example "the civilized world's justifiable contempt for South African oppression". I assume, then, that Dr. Troy isn't including the U.S. and Britain in the 1980s as civilized, since both the Reagan and Thatcher administrations were at least lukewarm if not at times secretly cosy with the apartheid government... as was Israel. Rather, I assume that the civilized nations to which he refers were the communist bloc and many African and Arab states - apartheids longest and most consistent foes. Actually, here I am being reductionist, since neither administration spoke for all Americans or Britons.

Now, again, I must admit that I do not comment here on either the reality of Israeli 'apartheid' nor Carter's book, but rather Dr. Troy's article. However, one would, I think, like to see a more serious attempt at debating these issues, especially from a full professor.

James Allen -
12/17/2006

The writer of this article conveniently forgets that Israel is indeed racist, in fact the whole idea of Israel is based upon racism. The fact is, Jews have the right to emigrate there, and non Jewish natives of Palestine do not have that right. Thus, the state remains a Jewish one favoring Jews. This is because the racist immigration policies maintain a Jewish majority, causing the non-Jews to live as second-class citizens. And this is only in Israel. The real true Apartheid of course is happening in the territories where the settlements are. Discriminating against people due to their heritage, an accident of birth, is racism, no matter how you try to change the name of it. So I appreciate Carter's boldness and courage in finally bringing this issue, long ignored by the media, to the table.

steve i marcus -
12/17/2006

israel is certainly nothing like s africa. Not talking about israels constitution cause words are cheap but actions count. Israel strives to embrace the arabs as citizens andisraelis just as jews are viewed legally. Theres action in the constitution of equality. Isreali arabs and all nonjews have opportunities like any jew around. If they choose to attack then jews or anyone is obligated to respond. If they choose to participate in THEIR country then jews and all are obligated to make room as they do. Calling israel apartheid is cheap and lacks a feeling for whats happening. s marcus murcia spain

steve i marcus -
12/17/2006

israel is certainly nothing like s africa. Not talking about israels constitution cause words are cheap but actions count. Israel strives to embrace the arabs as citizens andisraelis just as jews are viewed legally. Theres action in the constitution of equality. Isreali arabs and all nonjews have opportunities like any jew around. If they choose to attack then jews or anyone is obligated to respond. If they choose to participate in THEIR country then jews and all are obligated to make room as they do. Calling israel apartheid is cheap and lacks a feeling for whats happening. s marcus murcia spain